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

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Are the Democrats going to sit down and work with Trump for the Nation or do they hate him so much they want him to be a disaster so that they can run a great candidate in a few years times maybe another Clinton.:rolleyes:

ha ha ha. I'm sure he'll be afforded a lot more respect than he gave the last president. trump led a campaign to try and prove obama wasnt even qualified to be president. That's the precedent trump has set.

Overheal

It's really all going to depend on whether if behind closed doors he's rational enough to listen to advisors before doing something insane, like, starting a nuclear arms race or dragging the country into an additional war or two. Hell I'd much rather he had his phone taken away already and he becomes president already, demanding F35 replacements that are like F18s but basically F35s for example make it clear he's completely misinformed at present.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

With no actual expectations of what he's going to do, trump's voters are very likely to jump on board with whatever the does.

To some extent, yes, but he will be expected to get results all the same; To start making America great again.
He has already prevented some jobs going south, and he has some good ideas to stimulate the economy. By having a special deal tax amnesty for multinationals like Apple and Microsoft, he'll give them a chance to repatriate their profits to the USA. That will be an instant boost. Then lower corporation tax rates will sustain the boost in the longer term.

eire4

recedite wrote: »

To some extent, yes, but he will be expected to get results all the same; To start making America great again.
He has already prevented some jobs going south, and he has some good ideas to stimulate the economy. By having a special deal tax amnesty for multinationals like Apple and Microsoft, he'll give them a chance to repatriate their profits to the USA. That will be an instant boost. Then lower corporation tax rates will sustain the boost in the longer term.

Lets stop with the he has already stopped some jobs going south hype/ white lie. Yes he saved 700 odd jobs at Carrier from leaving the US but only at the expense of big financial tax breaks so the tax payer is footing the bill for that and yet Carrier are still moving over 1,000 other jobs off shore. Never mind the fact that the party which claims to be all about free enterprise and don't interfere with the market has now just declared they will pick winners and losers in the market place unless they roll over and give tax breaks to every single company that whines and says its going to move jobs abroad. But even then what about all the other companies who never wanted to offshore jobs they now have been put at a financial disadvantage against their competition who have been helped by the government.

Lower corporate tax rates hmm sounds great but reality is well put in this article from the conservative owned USA Today:

There's no question that the U.S. corporate tax system is broken, as many CEOs would argue. The problem, however, is not only that corporate tax rates are too high -- at 35% they are the highest in the world -- but that many of the country's most profitable companies don't pay ANY corporate taxes.
USA Today reports that 20 big, profitable U.S. companies paid no taxes in the second quarter, among them Merck (MRK), General Motors (GM) and computer storage company, Seagate (STX). (See below for the full list.)
Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit. Eight of the 20 companies were in real estate or real estate-related businesses.
"This is insanity because every day we hear people saying the corporate tax rate is a mess and that's holding back our economy," says Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Aaron Task.
Yahoo Finance's Henry Blodget agrees that the argument the tax system is hurting the economy is a "complete crock," but he says the "corporate tax situation is a big problem" because companies often do whatever they can -- like moving headquarters overseas AKA "corporate inversions" -- just to save on taxes. "We have to change the system," says Blodget, "because corporations are doing what anybody with the resources they have would do: minimize the taxes they pay."
He suggests that policymakers consider the "radical idea" of eliminating corporate income taxes all together.
Steven Rattner, the former New York Times reporter turned private equity investor who led the Obama Administration's auto industry overhaul, favors that solution.
In a May New York Times op-ed, Rattner argued that "tax avoidance" has emerged as "a full-fledged business strategy" which ultimately reduces the share of corporate profits paid in taxes. He suggests instead eliminating corporate taxes and raising the tax rates shareholders pay on capital gains and dividends, and increasing rates on the earned income of wealthy Americans.


and don't even get me started on the Make America Great Again dog whistle.

AnGaelach

InTheTrees wrote: »

ha ha ha. I'm sure he'll be afforded a lot more respect than he gave the last president. trump led a campaign to try and prove obama wasnt even qualified to be president. That's the precedent trump has set.

That issue can hardly be solely attributed to Trump.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement

The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

To some extent, yes, but he will be expected to get results all the same; To start making America great again. He has already prevented some jobs going south, and he has some good ideas to stimulate the economy. By having a special deal tax amnesty for multinationals like Apple and Microsoft, he'll give them a chance to repatriate their profits to the USA. That will be an instant boost. Then lower corporation tax rates will sustain the boost in the longer term.

This is exactly it. To an extent the world has bound itself in regulation and Trump doesn't really play by the rules so he'll be freer to get things done.

You said he needs to start getting results which overlooks trump's ability to spin the truth. He isn't bound to actual outcomes precisely because if his ability to be vague and at the same time, whip people in to a frenzy.

Mr.Micro

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is exactly it. To an extent the world has bound itself in regulation and Trump doesn't really play by the rules so he'll be freer to get things done.

You said he needs to start getting results which overlooks trump's ability to spin the truth. He isn't bound to actual outcomes precisely because if his ability to be vague and at the same time, whip people in to a frenzy.

You may find he will be expected to deliver results. Vague won't cut it for too long. He never expected to be President, hence his vague campaign strategy. He has his work cut out and make no mistake, it may prove too much for him.

El_Duderino 09

Mr.Micro wrote:

You may find he will be expected to deliver results. Vague won't cut it for too long. He never expected to be President, hence his vague campaign strategy. He has his work cut out and make no mistake, it may prove too much for him.

He doesn't have to keep any campaign promises. Making America great again has already started. I bet you people who voted for trump are the kind of people who are impressed military pageantry.

Do you think the same role who vote trump are the kind of people who will sit down and do an honest analysis of the results of his presidency? They're the low information voters which means cold hard facts have least effect on them because cold facts are uninteresting to them. Trump knows that if he keeps entertaining them, they will keep voting for him.

Inquitus

Trumps New Years Wishes, still winning bigly and being unpresidented......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/815185071317676033

gosplan

Inquitus wrote: »

Trumps New Years Wishes, still winning bigly and being unpresidented......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/815185071317676033

I said in another thread. It's very embarrassing for the country.

300 million people and that's who you decide to put in charge.

aphex™

Gotta love the smug petulance there. Telling the people in the rust belt to vote for warmonger Hillary and TTIP, just because. Like you're living it.

The same attitude in Europe means there might not even be a UK or EU in a few years.

Get a grip, folks.

InTheTrees

Poll out today puts trumps approval at the lowest for a president elect ever at 47%.

It's going to be fun once he takes office.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Poll out today puts trumps approval at the lowest for a president elect ever at 47%.

It's going to be fun once he takes office.

Support for all politicians everywhere is low. At this point in time more than 40% favourability is good for a candidate. Turnout in local and general elections has not been great. I'm speaking of course about America and Europe principally. Participation in elections outside of these regions i have no figures on.

recedite

Obama has been throwing a lot of the toys out of the pram recently, between upsetting the Israelis at the UN, and then expelling the Russian diplomats.

Its not really causing the problems for Trump he had hoped though. Trump plays by his own rules, as usual. He immediately defuses the situation by tweeting. Having signalled to the relevant foreign leader that things will be different after 20th January, the foreign leaders just ignore Obama.
It'll be easy for Trump to put the toys back in the pram, thereby boosting his own street cred.
It must be very frustrating for Clinton and Obama.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Support for all politicians everywhere is low. At this point in time more than 40% favourability is good for a candidate.

Trump isn't a candidate for anything.

President elect's usually have approval ratings around 70%.

Trump is at 47%.

aphex™

Is this a bit like the polls that said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump isn't a candidate for anything.

President elect's usually have approval ratings around 70%.

Trump is at 47%.

That figure sounds odd. Are you seriously telling me Bush jr and Bill Clinton had such high approval from the electorate before entering office.

eire4

aphex™ wrote: »

Is this a bit like the polls that said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?

Actually the consensus in the polls leading into the election was that she was ahead by anywhere from 2-5% which is within the margin of error and given she won by about 2.8m the polls were correct.

eire4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That figure sounds odd. Are you seriously telling me Bush jr and Bill Clinton had such high approval from the electorate before entering office.

Bush Jr was at 65% approval when he took office and Clinton was at 67%, Obama was at 75%.

KingBrian2

eire4 wrote: »

Actually the consensus in the polls leading into the election was that she was ahead by anywhere from 2-5% which is within the margin of error and given she won by about 2.8m the polls were correct.

The polls narrowed closer to the election and she was always odd on favourites to win according to the polls.

aphex™

eire4 wrote: »

Actually the consensus in the polls leading into the election was that she was ahead by anywhere from 2-5% which is within the margin of error and given she won by about 2.8m the polls were correct.

Not really. They said Hillary was ahead and outside the margin of error in many polls like this CNN one http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/

AnGaelach

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump is at 47%.

Then they can only go upwards. Look on the bright side!

Billy86

AnGaelach wrote: »

Then they can only go upwards. Look on the bright side!

Not the case at all - Bush Jnr went as low as 22% by the end of his second term. I reckon Trump has a good chance of hitting that number by the end of his first year the way he's going.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Not the case at all - Bush Jnr went as low as 22% by the end of his second term.

Bush jnr was also a disaster until 9/11 changed everything.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That figure sounds odd. Are you seriously telling me Bush jr and Bill Clinton had such high approval from the electorate before entering office.

Yes.

It is usual that the there is public confidence in the new president elect.

Not with trump. He lost the peoples vote by a huge amount and he's showing quite clearly with his words that he's not interested in unifying the country. But this is the "change" his supporters wanted right? He's "telling it like it is" no doubt.

Count Dooku

eire4 wrote: »

Actually the consensus in the polls leading into the election was that she was ahead by anywhere from 2-5% which is within the margin of error and given she won by about 2.8m the polls were correct.

Polls were predicting that Hillary will get between 302 EC votes(538) and 323(HP), but instead Trump got 304

Hardly polls can be trusted anymore
https://twitter.com/huffingtonpost/status/795663593689808896?lang=en

recedite

Fox News anchor Meghan Kelly retires to NBC oblivion.

Money did not appear to be the major factor in her decision; Kelly stood to make an eight-figure salary wherever she went. As she talked about her thinking, it became clear that a top priority was a schedule that would allow her to spend more time with her three young children rather than returning home after their bedtime.

Also the fact that she dissed and harassed The Donald throughout his campaign, pretty much meant that her fortunes were tied to Hillary Clinton.
They would sink or swim, together.

PopePalpatine

Holding someone to account is "dissing and harassing" now? Oh wait, it's not just "someone", it's "The Donald". :rolleyes:

recedite

If she had acted impartially, she'd still be in her job now.
Fox News cannot afford to be fronted by a person in dispute with the POTUS for the whole of his term of office, while rival news corporations are first in line for all the interviews and scoops.

PopePalpatine

Oh please, anyone to the left of Breitshart is perceived as "in dispute with the POTUS" by his cultists.