President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Overheal

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Energy independence is a huge military issue for the US; even bigger than a socio-political issue in reality.

What the US needs is a "Trump" that is actually going to get **** done... but good ****. US has massive solar and other natural resource potential. Coal is dead, and propping it up by lying about its impact on the environment is just stupid.

While true it also can't just be shut off either. If you got your information from social media you'd think Germany was a solar utopia but the stats say different

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Half their energy still comes from coal sources.

But anyway, the only thing to worry anyone are his appointees. Perry as ES is just dreadful and signals we may be working backward on renewables and fossil fuels. Hopefully enough analysts remind them the strategic importance of energy independence though. But who knows: if we look at this as a resource war, it's not just enough to be energy independent, but also to starve your enemy. Buying oil from OPEC doesn't accomplish this, but you know, when US interests can export directly from 'flipped middle eastern countries, the game becomes different.

eire4

Bambi wrote: »

Trump will do what hes done his whole life, feather his own nest.

I could not agree more. As I see him his main concern will be taking care of himself and making more money for himself. Beyond that he will react in a petulant manner at times when challenged and that may spark various spats both internationally and domestically. But for the most part it looks to me that the extremist agenda of the Republican party will be allowed to run amok as well. In short drill baby drill, frack baby frack. Climate change what climate change. Social security privatize and hand over to wall street. Medicare and Medicaid vouchers. Obama care bye bye and have fun in the for profit health care free for all. Regulations on business to make sure they don't behave like say wall street or big oil bye bye I mean come on sure we can trust private business to behave and they know best always. Voter suppression, the cross check system was just the opening salvo. Beef up the militarized police you betcha. Spy on anybody challenging the government in any way you betcha and lets spy on everyone if at all possible anyway. Public education no lets privatize that too via charter schools. Really I could go on and on.

AnGaelach

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Belief that the US can compete with OPEC nations is ridiculous.

OPEC isn't the entire market, and even so, while Saudi oil technically has a lower break even point than any other country in the world their current budget is heavily reliant on oil money to function. Why else do you think they took a loan a few months ago for the first time in years? Venezuela certainly can't handle low oil prices, Iran needs price rises or to cut domestic subsidies.

I would say US gas is more than likely able to compete with OPEC.

AnGaelach

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know enough about the price or quantity of gas becoming available so I can't really comment. Sounds plausible. Are you saying there's enough gas to have an economic impact in europe? Oil was dirt cheap for the last year and it didn't hurt (near deflation aside) but it didn't exactly cause a boom either.

Countries usually negotiate oil/gas contracts months before they actually get those prices. Gazprom took a hammering last year because countries were waiting for prices to drop lower before contracting them (to get the most bang out of their buck). And oil being cheap last year didn't coincidence with Trump/Republican plans to lower corporation tax and ramp up infrastructure spending. Even if the US oil/gas doesn't go to Europe, the world supply is still going to be up and prices should drop across the board.

I'd hazard a guess that our ahead of expectations performance last year (the 7% growth not the 26% ) had a major part because of lower oil and gas.

That said, I've seen some estimates that oil will go north of $60bbl in the first or second quarter of next year thanks to the OPEC cuts.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Energy independence is a huge military issue for the US; even bigger than a socio-political issue in reality.

Energy independence is a big issue in all the economic blocks. Ireland sublets that job to Europe. Europe expresses the need for energy independence in a fairly passive way but it uses its economic influence to its advantage. America tends to be more aggressive military (and plenty of European countries help out) and uses that to its advantage, Russia and China use their own advantage - China has invested in buying a sh1t load of energy resources recently

It's the same for everyone. Europe tends to have an environmental sympathy which pushes it towards environmentally conscious energy supply and I think that's a good thing. If Trump decides to invest in sustainable energy, that would be a good thing.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Energy independence is a huge military issue for the US; even bigger than a socio-political issue in reality.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

What the US needs is a "Trump" that is actually going to get **** done... but good ****. US has massive solar and other natural resource potential. Coal is dead, and propping it up by lying about its impact on the environment is just stupid.

Trump will do some good and that's the bit that anti-Trump ones tend to forget. I think he'll do exactly as much good as he feels he needs to be elected. I think 'good' is completely subjective so I think he'll try to do a bit of 'good' in everyone's eyes. I keep hearing that he's really charming in person. Makes everyone feel special.

His main campaign point was making the poorly educated people, who don't reliably vote, feel special. In the parlance of the media 'he spoke to those people'.

He'll speak to lots more demographics and make them feel special before the next election by doing 'good'.

The rest of what he does will be for his own benefit.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well it's not true to say there no evidence for the hack. One of the top intelligence agencies (CIA) is making a fairly huge allegation. The FBI said there isn't enough evidence to say for sure that's fair enough. The FBI are essentially a police type organisation so they work to standards of evidence like 'beyond reasonable doubt' in court. The CIA are more of a military organisation so they don't need to work to the same standard of evidence and they can make inferences the FBI would be wrong to make.

I don't know what the truth of the matter is - and neither do you. To make a big pronouncement either way shows that you've picked your conclusion in advance of the evidence. If you watch fox news you'll probably think it's normal to pick your conclusion in advance, but it's actually not.

The fact that the agencies are talking about it means it should be taken seriously and we should await more information. That's what I'll do at least.

That happened with Syria but no war was officially declared.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

That happened with Syria but no war was officially declared.

I've no idea what that has to go with my post.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've no idea what that has to go with my post.

I'll explain. By withdrawing staff and ambassadors from a country that is a sure sign that war is approaching. No Russian ambassadors or staff are being kicked out of America because everyone in America knows Trump will not be going to war with Russia. All these allegations that Russia hacked the election will we see protesters gathered at the Russian Embassy calling on the Russians to leave.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

I'll explain. By withdrawing staff and ambassadors from a country that is a sure sign that war is approaching. No Russian ambassadors or staff are being kicked out of America because everyone in America knows Trump will not be going to war with Russia. All these allegations that Russia hacked the election will we see protesters gathered at the Russian Embassy calling on the Russians to leave.

I know they've no intention of going to war over it. If it happened, trump benefited from it. Why would he go to war over it?

I've no idea if well see protests at the embassy. What's your point?

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'll explain. By withdrawing staff and ambassadors from a country that is a sure sign that war is approaching. No Russian ambassadors or staff are being kicked out of America because everyone in America knows Trump will not be going to war with Russia. All these allegations that Russia hacked the election will we see protesters gathered at the Russian Embassy calling on the Russians to leave.

Well even at the height of the cold war that rarely happened, relationships went through bad and better times. This is nothing different.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

Well even at the height of the cold war that rarely happened, relationships went through bad and better times. This is nothing different.

Either way they're not going to war over this hacking or fake news. What happens later will be interesting. Now that the US and Russia are on better terms, what happens when Russia expands again like Georgia and Crimea? Will the US even oppose Russia?

If the Russia really is behind the hacking, it's hard to see how Trump can really oppose much of what Russia wants to do in the future.

It's good to have better relations with Russia but what exactly does that mean? Russia stops expanding in opposition to US and Europe? Or US and Europe stop opposing Russian expansion?

I think Russian expansion will be one of those times when Trump is pragmatic and ratchets down tension, and take plenty of opportunities to get the military involved on the middle East.

I don't but this idea that he's not an interventionist or a military hawk. I think he'll do a con trick where he uses the military more and still people will remember him saying that he would not get troops involved. (Get a reputation as an early riser and you can get up at noon). He has convinced some people he has a reputation as a Patriot, when he really doesn't have a track record of actually doing anything that doesn't primarily benefit himself.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

Well for one he was against American troops being sent to warzone that will only cause more turmoil and most the Democrats have shown themselves to be out and out Russophobes. George Bush took a very hard line against Russia in his later years as President and since Obama came to office tensions have ratcheted up. You want to talk about American values then provoking a war with Russia is not a small deal. As for the Muslim issue, Trump would like to see the current Muslim population to be integrated into mainstream society and that is what is needed. Muslims seeing themselves as citizens of France, Britain or Ireland and not beholden to a Jihadi group.

In summary:

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

He's against American boots on the ground if it will only cause more turmoil.

For reducing tensions with Russia.

He wants to see Muslims integrate.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

How do you know those are his values?

I'm still curious about how you know there are his values.

The first one is as bland a amdrsrrnbnt as you could possibly make BTW (who would admit to sending American troops to warzone that will only cause more turmoil?)

I'm particularly interested in the point about Muslims. How do you now his values us to integrate muslins?

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In summary:




I'm still curious about how you know there are his values.

The first one is as bland a amdrsrrnbnt as you could possibly make BTW (who would admit to sending American troops to warzone that will only cause more turmoil?)

I'm particularly interested in the point about Muslims. How do you now his values us to integrate muslins?

You may fast forward to the portion in which he talks about the Muslim world. Trump cares about Muslims, he cares about Muslims more than any other American President in the last 100 years has because no other American president really cared about the Arab people. He does not want another war with any Muslim country as he described to the panel. Yes he knows Gadhafi and Saddam were tyrants excepts going to war only makes these leaders into heroes.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

You may fast forward to the portion in which he talks about the Muslim world. Trump cares about Muslims, he cares about Muslims more than any other American President in the last 100 years has because no other American president really cared about the Arab people. He does not want another war with any Muslim country as he described to the panel. Yes he knows Gadhafi and Saddam were tyrants excepts going to war only makes these leaders into heroes.

Why did you use that video as evidence of trump supporting Muslim integration? He didn't even mention Muslims integrating.

Even if he did mention Muslims integrating in that video, he also mentioned security forces making registers of Muslims and keeping an eye on heir movements.

How can you tell the difference between campaign talk and trump's actual values? Has he done anything in the past that suggests one of his values is Muslim integration?

So did you divine his intentions from reading tealeaves or did you think of a good idea (Muslims integrating into America) and attribute it to him without him actually having to do anything? He's a clever bugger, as your demonstrating.

recedite

Muslim Americans need to try harder, according to Donald Trump, to "assimilate" within the United States. There's just a big issue with Trump's assumption. American Muslims already are well integrated, social science shows.

This anti-Trump article points to how the historic Muslim immigrants became assimilated into the US. In other words, their descendants are not Muslim.
Its an interesting argument to look at the two words "integration" and "assimilation". From the point of view of modern British and EU multiculturalism, these are two different things.
But from the point of view of the USA, which is a country of immigrants, they are two stages of the same thing.

The USA has never been multi-cultural, except in the sense that the indigenous "native peoples" have been allowed to maintain some of their own culture within their own strictly delineated reservation areas.
Mainstream USA is a melting pot culture. It is not multicultural. On arrival, immigrants were required to become Americans. To speak English and to swear allegiance to the flag and the constitution.

A piece of bronze coming out of the melting pot is stronger than either the tin or the copper that it was made from. But if you want bronze, the tin and the copper cannot maintain their individual identities.

FatherTed

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You may fast forward to the portion in which he talks about the Muslim world. Trump cares about Muslims, he cares about Muslims more than any other American President in the last 100 years has because no other American president really cared about the Arab people. He does not want another war with any Muslim country as he described to the panel. Yes he knows Gadhafi and Saddam were tyrants excepts going to war only makes these leaders into heroes.

Did you actually watch the video you posted? He didn't mention anything of what you're saying he said.

If as you say, President Trump cares more about Muslims than any previous President then why does he appoint such divisive figures to his cabinet as Michael Flynn who describe Islam as a cancer.

On the democrats I'm sick of them trying to find excuses of this catastrophe instead of looking at themselves. They pushed Hillary past Bernie and thought she would be anointed President easily but they didn't take into account this great showman in Trump.

Anyways, it's going to be a hilarious and dangerous 4 years with this unpresidential pervert in power. He's already reneging on most of his promises he sold to the suckers who voted for him but they're just blinded by their hatred and stupidity to care. As for me, I'll be fine, I'm comfortably well off so I'll be expecting my tax cut coming up shortly.

AnGaelach

FatherTed wrote: »

On the democrats I'm sick of them trying to find excuses of this catastrophe instead of looking at themselves. They pushed Hillary past Bernie and thought she would be anointed President easily but they didn't take into account this great showman in Trump.

What is with this belief that somehow Bernie was going to win where Clinton wasn't? Bernie probably would've suffered an even larger defeat. Do you think working class workers are going to vote for someone who wanted to hike up taxes? He'd have been laughed out of the room.

Wanderer78

AnGaelach wrote:

What is with this belief that somehow Bernie was going to win where Clinton wasn't? Bernie probably would've suffered an even larger defeat. Do you think working class workers are going to vote for someone who wanted to hike up taxes? He'd have been laughed out of the room.

Many believed Bernie would have wiped the floor with trump including Paul McCauley, I think he's right, but sure it's neither here nor there now

El_Duderino 09

AnGaelach wrote:

What is with this belief that somehow Bernie was going to win where Clinton wasn't? Bernie probably would've suffered an even larger defeat. Do you think working class workers are going to vote for someone who wanted to hike up taxes? He'd have been laughed out of the room.

Wanderer78 wrote:

Many believed Bernie would have wiped the floor with trump including Paul McCauley, I think he's right, but sure it's neither here nor there now

Theres no telling what would have happened. Bernie would have been vulnerable to attacks on his socialism but the bigger attacks would have come from leaks and fake news. Fake news is a lever that only really works on 'low information voters' or 'stupid people' in old money.

Bernie might have been a much better candidate but I think trump appealed to the right demographic and nailed it. I don't think Bernie would have fared much better

FreudianSlippers

AnGaelach wrote: »

What is with this belief that somehow Bernie was going to win where Clinton wasn't? Bernie probably would've suffered an even larger defeat. Do you think working class workers are going to vote for someone who wanted to hike up taxes? He'd have been laughed out of the room.

I'm not sure he proposed raising taxes on the working class.

However, just as the Republican party is rapidly abandoning their fundamental economic values to cling to far-right social conservatism, the Democratic fringe is abandoning their social values for far-left socialist economics.

There is such a large group of traditional Republicans and Democrats, as well as the disenfranchised by both parties that there is no wonder turnout was so low this year.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Bernie might have been a much better candidate but I think trump appealed to the right demographic and nailed it. I don't think Bernie would have fared much better

You may be right, maybe I'm just a bit biased but I'm not the only one thinking this as previously mentioned. It truly is neither here nor there now

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

You may be right, maybe I'm just a bit biased but I'm not the only one thinking this as previously mentioned. It truly is neither here nor there now

Bernie is neither her nor there but what about the next election? Does the candidate matter or should they just put their efforts into getting China to create pro democrat fake news whole Russia creates pro trump fake news?

Trump supporters say they know his values and done claim to now what he will do after a couple of questions is turns out they are flinging the blanks with their own desired outcome.

The fact is they normal reporting went out the window and almost nobody has a clue what he actually intends to do. He's been reported on for 18 months and in a reality TV style and people have convinced themselves he thinks what they thing. That's very dangerous as his base have no standards to hold him to, no promises they actually expect him to keep. Very dangerous

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bernie is neither her nor there but what about the next election? Does the candidate matter or should they just put their efforts into getting China to create pro democrat fake news whole Russia creates pro trump fake news?

Trump supporters say they know his values and done claim to now what he will do after a couple of questions is turns out they are flinging the blanks with their own desired outcome.

The fact is they normal reporting went out the window and almost nobody has a clue what he actually intends to do. He's been reported on for 18 months and in a reality TV style and people have convinced themselves he thinks what they thing. That's very dangerous as his base have no standards to hold him to, no promises they actually expect him to keep. Very dangerous

completely agree, im actually very worried about this administration, he has appointed potentially some very dangerous people in the form of climate change deniers, ex financiers, ex fossil fuel tycoons etc etc. this is not a good start but was expected from the republican party

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

what about the next election? Does the candidate matter

I think Trump's success will be hard to copy, and next time both parties will field a more traditional politician. Especially after 3 years of Trump.

Wanderer78

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think Trump's success will be hard to copy, and next time both parties will field a more traditional politician. Especially after 3 years of Trump.

very hard to know what ll happen next time around but i hope the progressive movement continues to push through

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I think Trump's success will be hard to copy, and next time both parties will field a more traditional politician. Especially after 3 years of Trump.

It depends on whether trump is a blip or part of a trend.

Some things have changed recently. Reality TV is the biggest form of entertainment. Politics is boring by comparison to reality TV.

Fox news added entertainment to politics. Trump ran almost completely on a reality TV basis. He pitched his ideas at a reality TV audience, kept pointless fueds going to keep everyone entertained. None of his campaign policies meant anything. They were just meant to entertain.

What makes you think anyone could win again by doing old school, dry, boring politics? Publishing a manifesto of ideas which your voters expect you to stick to appears quaint beside trump's approach. His voters don't have a set of outcomes they expect him to meet. They'll end up justifying each thing he does, after he does it.

Trump makes people feel special. As much as you see right leaning gold deride 'snowflakes', trump makes everyone feel like a special snowflake.

People who follow world affairs feel completely alienated by trump precisely because he hasn't bothered speaking to them the way he has spoken directly to low information voters.

Boring old politicians might not get a look in again after this.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Boring old politicians might not get a look in again after this.

If Trump is a yuge success, you could be right, but I think that is somewhat unlikely.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Trump is a yuge success, you could be right, but I think that is somewhat unlikely.

Democrats will do everything they can to keep Trump from being successful. Democrats will not be able to get over the 'Trump stole the election' for the next 8 years.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

If Trump is a yuge success, you could be right, but I think that is somewhat unlikely.

Why?

One major change will be the next time there's a terrorist attack in America.

Obama did the right thing by playing down the emotional side of events like the marathon bomb. They got the perpetrators shot them killed one and tried the other. Obama kept it low key and prevented people getting too excited. Most of the anger was directed at him.

People were so annoyed when he didn't use the words 'Islamic terrorism'. That's because they didn't listen to his long sentences when he spoke about terrorism. They needed to hear the words 'islamic terrorism' to know he was addressing the problem. Try.o will use those words alright. He'll frighten the shyte out of the low information voters and they'll think he's their savour

Trump will whip people up into a panic and then offer the solution - violence. He says he's not a hawk but in actual fact he will end up doing lots of bombing and saying that he only used the military when it was necessary -exactly what everyone says.

Whipping people up into a frenzy will mean that they turn to him for leadership. And he wont hesitate to act - invading Iraq which had nothing to do with anything, was enough to get Bush reelected.

Trump will be reelected because he'll cause panic and then offer protection, which will be 4 more years of Trump presidency.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Democrats will do everything they can to keep Trump from being successful. Democrats will not be able to get over the 'Trump stole the election' for the next 8 years.

Democrats are very weak at the moment. Republicans will be the most effective opposition. Republicans don't even have co troll over their president and he isn't even a republican. In short neither party is strong and America needs strong opposition right now.

They don't ever need the type of opposition the republicans gave for the last 8 years. But strong opposition in the traditional sense