Donald Trump

Bazzo

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said that being audited meant he was hiding something. Trump has used the audit to get out of releasing his returns. That could be viewed as him trying to hide something. Not necessarily anything dodgy or illegal. Some have said it's because he'll be shown to have lied about how much he's worth

He claimed that he could not release such things while an audit is underway. The head of the IRS came out publicly and rubbished the claim.

He also lied about various other aspects of it. Like getting audited every year for the past decade. Again, the IRS all but said that is untrue.

He lies very regularly about basically every aspect of his life or any issue he's speaking about. They're not even good or clever lies, it usually takes no more than a few mins on google to verify them as bull****

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadYaker

It's going to be interesting for sure. Sanders refused to play it dirty but Trump with play it as dirty as it gets. Both candidates have a plethora of reasons to not vote for them, I predict it's going to be one of the dirtiest and nastiest campaigns ever.

Speedwell

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, no, he's not lying. Not exactly. When you're Trump, you make up your own facts. Trump(c) facts. And you believe them, until you need different facts.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

A typical Hillary supporter will say "She was just a lawyer. That was her job." A normal person would say "Yeah, she was just a lawyer. I don't want someone who speaks about child rape like that to be president."

"He was just a bishop. Talking about something in the church. That was his job to protect his clients. Why wouldn't he do everything he could? Or should he have tempered his opinions because people would start caring thirty years later?"


And I think the women who vote for her because she's a woman deserve a sexist president.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know about that. Trump is opposed to globalisation and free trade. So is Sanders. The former has pledged to bring jobs back to the US which will be bad news for the many Irish working for American multinationals.

I'm a lay person when it comes to this but isn't his problem cheap less skilled labor? I thought less free trade would result in even more companies setting up bases in the EU for skilled jobs.

The jobs we have here aren't exactly run of the mill factory jobs that's hurting the American middle class. It would take years for Intel for example to move back to America if forced.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

A typical Hillary supporter will say "She was just a lawyer. That was her job." A normal person would say "Yeah, she was just a lawyer. I don't want someone who speaks about child rape like that to be president."

"He was just a bishop. Talking about something in the church. That was his job to protect his clients. Why wouldn't he do everything he could? Or should he have tempered his opinions because people would start caring thirty years later?"

Okay, first off, I wouldn't call myself a Hillary fan.

If I was a potential voter, I'd feel a sense of frustration that she was my likely to be only choice other than Trump in November. I'd have numerous misgivings on her positions on various different issues, be highly questionable of her financial backing, and, also, personally, I find her to be cold and hard to warm to. Heck, I even think Trump has somehow got a more likable style than her - he's certainly got charisma. And I don't feel good admitting that!

However, that audio clip which I listened to does not contain anything, in my view, that would make me question her character, her inherent humanity, more than I would have previously. Have YOU listened to it? What it tells you is that she is somehow a-okay with child abuse? Are you serious?

I listened to it in good faith, I mean if it's supposed to contain what it claims too that would be pretty damming stuff from anyone, never mind a would be President. I think if the audio is supposed to be taken as some sort of proof that she's a monster; well then it's far from a smoking gun.

She refers to the case as "terrible": she clearly isn't thinking of it as fun and games. The sticking point for many people seems to be that she laughs about her client, the defendant, failing a polygraph. Considering the coverage, you would expect a full on diabolical" we sure fooled them there" type cackle. That is not the case - in the context of the interview she's laughing nervously at how it brought to her mind the inaccuracy of polygraph tests generally, I actually thought that was a very human moment. The rest of her tale is about the lengths she went to get expert evidence and how she was able to look for flaws in the prosecutions case. She laughs a few times about the incongruity of the surroundings she sometimes found herself in - some guy's basement, for example - but never at the expense of the alleged victim in the trial.

To be honest, she comes across as a very dogged and resourceful investigator. Maybe the conversation seems relaxed, but it is primarily focused on the legal process; it's a casual conversation between two people focused on the business of the law. I don't think the morality or the emotional background was what the reporter was interested in. What was she supposed to say as an interviewee in that instance? To be in floods of tears throughout? I think if any other lawyer gave an interview such as that, no-one would bat an eyelid. Tell me, how exactly does she speak about child rape?

The comparison with the bishop is farcial. She was appointed to defend the accused and she did her level best - her legal obligation - to provide a defence. Would you say that people aren't entitled to a defence in certain cases? That her duty in the case wasn't to defend the accused? People seem to demand of her a superhuman morality; in that case I just see a defender, defending. And despite what you may personally think, everyone is entitled to a fair defence. Are you making a comparison between someone appointed to defend an accused in a trial, and an enabler of child abuse in the church? Get real....

Honestly, Hillary has enough legitimate things to defend herself against rather than to have to deal with spurious nonsense like this.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, first off, I wouldn't call myself a Hillary fan.

If I was a potential voter, I'd feel a sense of frustration that she was my likely to be only choice other than Trump in November. I'd have numerous misgivings on her positions on various different issues, be highly questionable of her financial backing, and, also, personally, I find her to be cold and hard to warm to. Heck, I even think Trump has somehow got a more likable style than her - he's certainly got charisma. And I don't feel good admitting that!

However, that audio clip which I listened to does not contain anything, in my view, that would make me question her character, her inherent humanity, more than I would have previously. Have YOU listened to it? What it tells you is that she is somehow a-okay with child abuse? Are you serious?

I listened to it in good faith, I mean if it's supposed to contain what it claims too that would be pretty damming stuff from anyone, never mind a would be President. I think if the audio is supposed to be taken as some sort of proof that she's a monster; well then it's far from a smoking gun.

She refers to the case as "terrible": she clearly isn't thinking of it as fun and games. The sticking point for many people seems to be that she laughs about her client, the defendant, failing a polygraph. Considering the coverage, you would expect a full on diabolical" we sure fooled them there" type cackle. That is not the case - in the context of the interview she's laughing nervously at how it brought to her mind the inaccuracy of polygraph tests generally, I actually thought that was a very human moment. The rest of her tale is about the lengths she went to get expert evidence and how she was able to look for flaws in the prosecutions case. She laughs a few times about the incongruity of the surroundings she sometimes found herself in - some guy's basement, for example - but never at the expense of the alleged victim in the trial.

To be honest, she comes across as a very dogged and resourceful investigator. Maybe the conversation seems relaxed, but it is primarily focused on the legal process; it's a casual conversation between two people focused on the business of the law. I don't think the morality or the emotional background was what the reporter was interested in. What was she supposed to say as an interviewee in that instance? To be in floods of tears throughout? I think if any other lawyer gave an interview such as that, no-one would bat an eyelid. Tell me, how exactly does she speak about child rape?

The comparison with the bishop is farcial. She was appointed to defend the accused and she did her level best - her legal obligation - to provide a defence. Would you say that people aren't entitled to a defence in certain cases? That her duty in the case wasn't to defend the accused? People seem to demand of her a superhuman morality; in that case I just see a defender, defending. And despite what you may personally think, everyone is entitled to a fair defence. Are you making a comparison between someone appointed to defend an accused in a trial, and an enabler of child abuse in the church? Get real....

Honestly, Hillary has enough legitimate things to defend herself against rather than to have to deal with spurious nonsense like this.

Spurious nonsense?

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit.

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

I'll compare her to a bishop all I like. I think it's disgusting to blame a victim and talk about the case like that in the recording. This was a girl raped so brutally, she was in a coma for five days and spent months recovering physically.

Edit: My main point here is that lots of people will feel the same after trump attacks her mercilessly. She'll lose because people like me won't be swayed by "the law". We'll see how she spoke and what she wrote.

Anyways. I'm done with this particular topic because frankly, it annoys me too much.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a lay person when it comes to this but isn't his problem cheap less skilled labor? I thought less free trade would result in even more companies setting up bases in the EU for skilled jobs.

The jobs we have here aren't exactly run of the mill factory jobs that's hurting the American middle class. It would take years for Intel for example to move back to America if forced.

As with anything, it's more complicated than any politician will lay it out to be. Less trade is going to harm European economies which will result in job losses and more people requiring state support. Trade enables countries to be more specialised and drives prices down. Technology means many jobs are being lost to automation so erecting tariffs isn't going to made these companies relocate of set up new factories.

Regarding Intel, his pledge was to bring jobs home. I don't see why Intel would get any sort of exception. The Donald isn't known for being appreciative of nuance. If he gets in, he'll either be unable to fulfill his insane promises or his hands will be constrained by the constitution or a body of legislature. The president of the US isn't a dictator and at most, he'll ban companies' products and services from the US which is only a small fraction of the global market in any case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

its all just hot air from trump. He cant unilaterally impose an import tax and i cant see congress agreeing to it.

MonkeyTennis

He wont release his tax returns because

a) hes not that rich
b) The money he gives to 'charity' isnt real.
c) He is not self financing

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As with anything, it's more complicated than any politician will lay it out to be. Less trade is going to harm European economies which will result in job losses and more people requiring state support. Trade enables countries to be more specialised and drives prices down. Technology means many jobs are being lost to automation so erecting tariffs isn't going to made these companies relocate of set up new factories.

Regarding Intel, his pledge was to bring jobs home. I don't see why Intel would get any sort of exception. The Donald isn't known for being appreciative of nuance. If he gets in, he'll either be unable to fulfill his insane promises or his hands will be constrained by the constitution or a body of legislature. The president of the US isn't a dictator and at most, he'll ban companies' products and services from the US which is only a small fraction of the global market in any case.

Less trade doesn't automatically mean harming economies. It can mean transferring a part of productive capacity in an economy, away from exports and reliance on imports, and towards the domestic economy - but only if the economy is being managed properly, and is open to the spending necessary for this (with hints lately, that Trump is indeed open to this - in his comments on the inability for the US to go bankrupt, due to public debt).

This can grow capacity locally, and create jobs. It's not a better or worse way of doing things, it's just a different way of configuring the economy, which you need to decide on a case-by-case basis, whether it's appropriate.

In a world where all countries have tried to engage in a 'beggar thy neighbour' policy of exporting more at the same time (which is a race to the bottom, as World Imports = World Exports, so if all countries try to export more and import less all at the same time, it's not possible for all of them to do this) - more of those countries should have instead switched to investing in the domestic economy, including in domestic infrastructure - where there's no end of work that needs to be done, really, especially given that countries need an entire overhaul of their energy infrastructure to abate climate change.

Bazzo

Funny you should mention climat change, here's what Trump has to say about it:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

BoatMad

A politican promising everything to everybody , changing policy on a whim of public support and riding any bandwagon there is

Sure we have none of that here , itsnt that right Mehole

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Less trade doesn't automatically mean harming economies. It can mean transferring a part of productive capacity in an economy, away from exports and reliance on imports, and towards the domestic economy - but only if the economy is being managed properly, and is open to the spending necessary for this (with hints lately, that Trump is indeed open to this - in his comments on the inability for the US to go bankrupt, due to public debt).

And there's the issue. Do you think Trump will "manage the economy properly?" He thinks he can coerce Mexico to finance his wall despite there being net emigration to Mexico. He also proposes to exclude nearly a quarter of the world's population from the US. And this is before we even look at his attitudes to women and ethnic minorities. I conclude that Trump hasn't the capacity to manage the economy properly and and anyone looking at his business career as evidence to the contrary might wish to take a closer look.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This can grow capacity locally, and create jobs. It's not a better or worse way of doing things, it's just a different way of configuring the economy, which you need to decide on a case-by-case basis, whether it's appropriate.

How do they grow locally when domestic costs are so much higher? So much so as to be prohibitive. I live in SouthEast England where rents are soaring because vested interests and NIMBYs have managed to freeze housebuilding for their own ends and to the detriment of everyone else so rents here are extortionate. Companies move abroad for a reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And there's the issue. Do you think Trump will "manage the economy properly?" He thinks he can coerce Mexico to finance his wall despite there being net emigration to Mexico. He also proposes to exclude nearly a quarter of the world's population from the US. And this is before we even look at his attitudes to women and ethnic minorities. I conclude that Trump hasn't the capacity to manage the economy properly and and anyone looking at his business career as evidence to the contrary might wish to take a closer look.



How do they grow locally when domestic costs are so much higher? So much so as to be prohibitive. I live in SouthEast England where rents are soaring because vested interests and NIMBYs have managed to freeze housebuilding for their own ends and to the detriment of everyone else so rents here are extortionate. Companies move abroad for a reason.

I don't think anybody - even Trump himself probably - has even the slightest clue whether he will manage the economy properly there.

It's impossible to tell what someone will do, when they will say almost anything to get into power - no matter how inflammatory - and that's what makes him so completely dangerous and threatening to democracy in the US.

He does appear to have some financial acumen though - there are hints that he maybe even has enough, to know how to utilize the US currency to its full extent, without letting silly 'debt ceiling' scaremongering get in the way - and if he is willing to use that power, he'd have no bother growing the domestic economy there.

Growing the domestic economy doesn't mean higher domestic costs - the costs depend on the relative scarcity/availability of resources - which is far more complicated.

osarusan

Info on the last few pages has highlighted what a naked predatory populist he is.

I mean, in the past, politicians have at least tried to cloak it somewhat.

I wonder what impact it will have in future elections now that this blueprint has proven to be so much more successful than imagined.

Speedwell

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He does appear to have some financial acumen though - there are hints that he maybe even has enough, to know how to utilize the US currency to its full extent, without letting silly 'debt ceiling' scaremongering get in the way

That's his SOP all right, using his "financial acumen" to persuade investors to bankroll him, then sucking what he wants from his acquisitions and running them into bankruptcy on the "too big to fail" model. Hell, if it works for banks, it should work for the US economy, right?

Ush1

"Local economies", enjoy going back to the 18th century so!

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We're not talking about Ireland, we're talking about 'free trade' overall.

In western countries, there is still a hell of a lot of lingering high unemployment, and potential for boosting industrial capacity in domestic economies - potentially for replacing foreign goods, if we choose to.

I'm not saying that's the way things should go either - that's a case-by-case issue, depending on each individual industry/country and their needs - it means 'free trade' and globalization isn't the sole way to do things, neither should it automatically be the preferred way - it's a case-by-case issue.

ohnonotgmail

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't think anybody - even Trump himself probably - has even the slightest clue whether he will manage the economy properly there.

It's impossible to tell what someone will do, when they will say almost anything to get into power - no matter how inflammatory - and that's what makes him so completely dangerous and threatening to democracy in the US.

He does appear to have some financial acumen though - there are hints that he maybe even has enough, to know how to utilize the US currency to its full extent, without letting silly 'debt ceiling' scaremongering get in the way - and if he is willing to use that power, he'd have no bother growing the domestic economy there.

Growing the domestic economy doesn't mean higher domestic costs - the costs depend on the relative scarcity/availability of resources - which is far more complicated.

his financial acumen seems to consist of spending other peoples money on projects and then walking away when it goes tits up. and on occasion suing people when they complain about it.

his idea of using "US currency to its full extent" is to keep printing money ad infinitum.

BoatMad

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're not talking about Ireland, we're talking about 'free trade' overall.

In western countries, there is still a hell of a lot of lingering high unemployment, and potential for boosting industrial capacity in domestic economies - potentially for replacing foreign goods, if we choose to.

I'm not saying that's the way things should go either - that's a case-by-case issue, depending on each individual industry/country and their needs - it means 'free trade' and globalization isn't the sole way to do things, neither should it automatically be the preferred way - it's a case-by-case issue.

The US needs low cost foreign manufacturing to allow the " middle classes " to buy " stuff "

Nothing will change significantly. The US does not exist on its own. It's part of a collective global economy.

Trump has more connections with Ireland then Clinton has. His son holidayed in Cavan when he was a kid.

Speedwell

One of the worst things about a Trump presidency is that it will prioritize "what's in it for me" over "what can I do for my country" thinking in presidential campaigns. Shades of the Roman empire (smh)...

Honestly, does anyone think Trump expects not to profit from his presidency? That he's doing it out of pure patriotism and other noble sentiments? It would make a cat laugh.

Bazzo

A pretty common line trotted out in support of him is "He doesn't really mean some of those things he says, he's just saying them to get elected you know."

Like, wtf? So you're willingly to selectively believe some of his statements, depending on your own views, and disregard others. That's putting aside the fact that you are admitting that he is bare face lying to everybody and it doesn't put you off him in the slightest. Absolutely baffling. Either you believe he is serious about all of his election promises, sentiments and statements, or you believe that he has little intention of folllowing through with any of them. You don't get to pick and choose the facts to suit yourself(despite what Donald would like to think).

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

Honestly, does anyone think Trump expects not to profit from his presidency? That he's doing it out of pure patriotism and other noble sentiments? It would make a cat laugh.

While you're right, he's ran before.. He seems to be really really into the idea of being president.

KomradeBishop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his financial acumen seems to consist of spending other peoples money on projects and then walking away when it goes tits up. and on occasion suing people when they complain about it.

his idea of using "US currency to its full extent" is to keep printing money ad infinitum.

He didn't say ad infinitum. Nonetheless, I find it quite funny/scary/ironic that Donald Fúcking Trump of all people, may be the person to take MMT mainstream.

Bazzo

Deleted User wrote: »

While you're right, he's ran before.. He seems to be really really into the idea of being president.

Are you surprised? By all accounts, and certainly from what we can see of his public persona, he's a dangerously self obsessed narcissist.

ohnonotgmail

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He didn't say ad infinitum. Nonetheless, I find it quite funny/scary/ironic that Donald Fúcking Trump of all people, may be the person to take MMT mainstream.

what he said is close enough that it makes no difference.