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

InTheTrees

Leroy42 wrote: »

He doesn't need to make deals. He simply gets these big companies want they want (the coal industry for example) and make sure that they scratch his back later on. Giving him a construction contract here, a sut price on some real estate there. Taking residency in some new office blocks to ensure they are viable.

I agree that this whole escapade is being used as a massive money grab by the trump family, and they'll make out well even if he's impeached. They are getting as much as they possibly can out of it, they're making millions every time he stays at his own hotel. The Corruption began right after election day.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Temporary at worst. Sure, the brand may take some flak during his term, but in terms of PR, the Trumps are now a top line family. They will be followed and discussed and asked for input for years to come.

Donald Trump is the least popular president of all time.

If Donald Trump is impeached for treason (and/or indicted) how do you think the brand will fare then? The Trumps themselves will have to change their names.

InTheTrees wrote: »

I agree that this whole escapade is being used as a massive money grab by the trump family, and they'll make out well even if he's impeached. They are getting as much as they possibly can out of it, they're making millions every time he stays at his own hotel. The Corruption began right after election day.

I imagine the Feds dont take too well to treason.
Eric Scneiderman NY AG will take their empire apart dollar by crooked money laundered dollar. Think Trump university X 1000. Scneiderman doesnt take pay offs I hear. ;-)

Leroy42

Yes I agree, it could turn out the wrong way for them, but the rewards are staggering if it works.

For a relatively small investment (he spent around $100m I think) he now has access to every bit of information that he could ever want.

He has the ability to radically cut his taxes, massively increase the recognition of the Trump brand and to get in with those with the real power. Isn't it a coincidence that Ivanka just happened to get her China Patents recently!

Of course it could fail, but failure is a risk that Trump is willing to take. And he has shown himself to be very adept at passing any failures onto others.

There is simply no reason for his approval ratings to be anything other than 0% at this point. He has delivered nothing that he promised. In fact he has done more work on going the opposite way than acheiving anything, yet he is busy blaming everybody else at those that support him are willing to accept it

Professor Moriarty

Rightwing wrote: »

Ivanka would make for a fine president. Instead of a Clinton political dynasty, we could have a Trump one.

Let's pretend you're not joking. What exactly do you think would qualify her to be a "fine president"?

Rightwing

Valord wrote: »

I don't think presidents tend to shrug off negative baggage that easily whe they leave office. Having the name "Clinton" still hurt Hillary in the last election, and the name "Bush" hurt Jeb!. People still have very negative connotations with the name "Richard Nixon". Just getting a name out there isn't good if the connotation is mostly negative. A lot more people have heard of Jon Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz than they did 2 years ago, but that's not really a great thing for either of them.

While losing out on the clothing business specifically obviously isn't that big a problem for them, it's more just representative of the brand as a whole. Hotels and casinos have the same wide audience as clothing, I can't see how they won't be affected the same way.

Nonsesnse.
Trump beat the two of them so easily. She couldn't shake off the crooked hilary image, no charisma, a war lunatic. Jeb wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, bit like his brother I suppose in that respect.

Rightwing

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's pretend you're not joking. What exactly do you think would qualify her to be a "fine president"?

She's got the looks, she's got the brains, and let's be honest, who wants a weather beaten 70+ year old in office, eh? (That goes for Sanders/hilary/trump...what a ridiculous field, is that the best america had to offer ).

Leroy42

Rightwing wrote: »

Ivanka would make for a fine president. Instead of a Clinton political dynasty, we could have a Trump one.

But isn't Ivanka the moderate voice in the WH. Standing up for equality, workers rights, womens rights, paid maternity leave. She wants inclusion. She is married to an ex democrat. She is against bullying

If you like Trump then she is close to a nightmare for you

Rightwing

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't Ivanka the moderate voice in the WH. Standing up for equality, workers rights, womens rights, paid maternity leave. She wants inclusion. She is married to an ex democrat. She is against bullying

If you like Trump then she is close to a nightmare for you

I never said I like Trump, I would like the Freedom Caucas to block his spending plans, frustrate him, hold the line on the debt ceiling, force a shutdown, and finally make a Government fiscally responsible. I see very little difference beween the democrats and republicans, apart from trump shouting about emigration, meanwhile obama deported 2.5m and the liberals were sipping their lattes oblivious to it, as content as could be.

Professor Moriarty

Rightwing wrote: »

She's got the looks, she's got the brains, and let's be honest, who wants a weather beaten 70+ year old in office, eh? (That goes for Sanders/hilary/trump...what a ridiculous field, is that the best america had to offer ).

I'm afraid only a lunatic would vote for a president based on looks. Her intelligence as a politician is unknown simply because she has never been elected to any position. In fact, her intelligence is unknown, period. Nor has she ever had to present her policies and then defend them. So what she stands for is unknown. At best, she's been fortunate to have a rich kid failed businessman 'billionaire' 'celebrity' as a father.

Sadly, very, sadly, there are lunatics who would vote for her simply because she is easy on the eye.

Valord

Rightwing wrote: »

Nonsesnse.
Trump beat the two of them so easily. She couldn't shake off the crooked hilary image, no charisma, a war lunatic. Jeb wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, bit like his brother I suppose in that respect.

It certainly wasn't "easily" at all. I don't know what victory you would not consider "easy" if you consider one of the closest EC victories and worst PV margins in US history to be "easy". If being "the sharpest knife in the drawer" was required then Trump wouldn't have won either.

Regardless of that, I don't see the point you're making. The Trump family did not have a history of presidents when he ran, so how is this relevant?

demfad

Rightwing wrote: »

Nonsesnse.
Trump beat the two of them so easily. She couldn't shake off the crooked hilary image, no charisma, a war lunatic. Jeb wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, bit like his brother I suppose in that respect.

How do you reckon he beat Clinton so easily? Where are you getting your information? It came down to 80,000 votes over 3 swing States.
He also needed the October suprise of the Comey letter to save him from one of the worse defeats in presidential history.

The crooked Hillary image emanates from 8 nothing burger investigations into Benghazi. Also the Govt Accountability Institute run by Rebekah Mercer and Steve Bannon produced numerous propaganda features on her including Clinton Cash which made it to Cannes. The 'bombshell' story in this: Hillary selling 20% of all US uranium to Russia has been refuted as nonsense even though the NY Times actually reported it before retracting.

The SCOTUS decimated the Voter Rights Acts allowing the Republicans to implement cross-check gerrymandering and all sorts of practices aimed at suppressing minority voters. Obama 2012 would have struggled against Trump in the swing states.

The Citizens United ruling meant that billionaires could back politicians again: Mercers bankrolled Trumps campaign.

Clinton Watts testifying at the US sentae sub committee for investigating Russian interference said the Russian botnet helped, Trump and Sanders in the primaries and TRump in the presidential race.

In spite of all this she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Russian fake news spread the idea that a no-fly zone over Syria would lead to war with Russia. All it would mean is that Russia/Syria could not bomb people. This would effectively greatly ease the refugee crises also.
We could do with her now.

Christy42

Rightwing wrote: »

Some of these protests are violent, some untruths too (Russia etc). No one knows who and what to believe anymore. Country is losing respect.

That happened when Trump took office. He has been largely over run. He has made relations better with precisely 0 countries and strained them with loads.

He is a serial liar. He promised wins would abound and has seen only failure. The closest thing to a win was convincing Republicans to vote for a conservative judge. Legitimately that is this fine negotiators best win. He managed to fail to get Republicans to vote for less health care ffs.

He has shown no ability to think about policy details or even read them. Decisions seem to be taken by officials who were not voted in given his unwillingness/inability to read

Rightwing

Valord wrote: »

It certainly wasn't "easily" at all. I don't know what victory you would not consider "easy" if you consider one of the closest EC victories and worst PV margins in US history to be "easy". If being "the sharpest knife in the drawer" was required then Trump wouldn't have won either.

Regardless of that, I don't see the point you're making. The Trump family did not have a history of presidents when he ran, so how is this relevant?

That's the whole point. Having a history should help you. But those candidates were so, so weak they blew it. If there was a Kennedy with 1 leg, eye and arm he'd get in ahead of Hilary.

demfad wrote: »

How do you reckon he beat Clinton so easily? Where are you getting your information? It came down to 80,000 votes over 3 swing States.
He also needed the October suprise of the Comey letter to save him from one of the worse defeats in presidential history.

The crooked Hillary image emanates from 8 nothing burger investigations into Benghazi. Also the Govt Accountability Institute run by Rebekah Mercer and Steve Bannon produced numerous propaganda features on her including Clinton Cash which made it to Cannes. The 'bombshell' story in this: Hillary selling 20% of all US uranium to Russia has been refuted as nonsense even though the NY Times actually reported it before retracting.

The SCOTUS decimated the Voter Rights Acts allowing the Republicans to implement cross-check gerrymandering and all sorts of practices aimed at suppressing minority voters. Obama 2012 would have struggled against Trump in the swing states.

The Citizens United ruling meant that billionaires could back politicians again: Mercers bankrolled Trumps campaign.

Clinton Watts testifying at the US sentae sub committee for investigating Russian interference said the Russian botnet helped, Trump and Sanders in the primaries and TRump in the presidential race.

In spite of all this she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Russian fake news spread the idea that a no-fly zone over Syria would lead to war with Russia. All it would mean is that Russia/Syria could not bomb people. This would effectively greatly ease the refugee crises also.
We could do with her now.

Thanks for the laugh.
Popular vote doesn't count, he won 306 to 232, to me this is comfortable, very comfortable.

Christy42

Rightwing wrote: »

That's the whole point. Having a history should help you. But those candidates were so, so weak they blew it. If there was a Kennedy with 1 leg, eye and arm he'd get in ahead of Hilary.



Thanks for the laugh.
Popular vote doesn't count, he won 306 to 232, to me this is comfortable, very comfortable.

Have you put a point forward in Trump's favour so far? I am not sure what number of limbs have to do with making you a good president though. Maybe you should re evaluate your metrics here.

I mean I am always curious, I get how those who don't look at facts. Those who think Obama played golf more etc support him but I am always curious if there are real world facts that could be used to justify support for this president whose term (so far) is just a list of failures.

It was a small number of votes could have turned the election the other way. This is what makes it close. What it is to you does not make it true. I should point out I don't think margin of victory has much of an effect. You have a bit more political clout with a big win as you can help people get re elected but the polls give a much more up to date measure of your ability to do that (and popular vote).

Valord

Rightwing wrote: »

That's the whole point. Having a history should help you. But those candidates were so, so weak they blew it.

Kennedy died pretty early into his term by assassination, which is a pretty good way to be remembered more fondly (I would expect Trump's retroactive approval to take a good jump if he was assassinated tomorrow too). I don't know what would make you think that having a history would help you, it's just more things for you to be attacked on.

Rightwing wrote: »

If there was a Kennedy with 1 leg, eye and arm he'd get in ahead of Hilary.

Is that because none of those things are really an impediment to being president?

Rightwing wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh.
Popular vote doesn't count, he won 306 to 232, to me this is comfortable, very comfortable.

Hardly. The margins in the decisive states were under 1%. He could barely afford to lose any support and still win. This is the equivalent of calling 41% in a test a very comfortable pass. 306 is an historically very narrow win in the electoral college, in the bottom 10% of elections based on percentage of EC votes available.

InTheTrees

Rightwing wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh.
Popular vote doesn't count, he won 306 to 232, to me this is comfortable, very comfortable.

Except the electoral college doesn't help with dealing with congress. Losing the popular vote explains why a president has trouble passing any legislation.

Members of the house of representatives, the largest body in congress, are up for election every two years.

Rightwing

Christy42 wrote: »

Have you put a point forward in Trump's favour so far? I am not sure what number of limbs have to do with making you a good president though. Maybe you should re evaluate your metrics here.

I mean I am always curious, I get how those who don't look at facts. Those who think Obama played golf more etc support him but I am always curious if there are real world facts that could be used to justify support for this president whose term (so far) is just a list of failures.

It was a small number of votes could have turned the election the other way. This is what makes it close. What it is to you does not make it true.

I won't defend Trump or anyone else just for the sake of it. When someone is a failure regardless of party, creed or colour, I'll call them a failure. Obama was a failure.

Valord wrote: »

Is that because none of those things are really an impediment to being president?


.

Maybe they aren't for you, but they certainly are for me, and just about everyone else because I've yet to see 1 in office.

Valord

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe they aren't for you, but they certainly are for me, and just about everyone else because I've yet to see 1 in office.

Have you considered that may be a function of the very low number of people who have managed to lose an eye, a leg and an arm? If you're looking for presidents with serious disabilities though, there is at least one quite famous example I can think of off the top of my head who didn't seem to let it get in the way very much.

Christy42

Rightwing wrote: »

I won't defend Trump or anyone else just for the sake of it. When someone is a failure regardless of party, creed or colour, I'll call them a failure. Obama was a failure.



Maybe they aren't for you, but they certainly are for me, and just about everyone else because I've yet to see 1 in office.

You know your on the Donald Trump thread right?

Still it is good to know. I am always curious if someone can come up with arguments against my own but I have yet to see a half decent defense of Trump. Trump is a failure.

InTheTrees

Rightwing wrote: »

Obama was a failure.

Odd then that a republican President, a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate are all unable to repeal ObamaCare.

Curious.

Rightwing

Christy42 wrote: »

You know your on the Donald Trump thread right?

Still it is good to know. I am always curious if someone can come up with arguments against my own but I have yet to see a half decent defense of Trump. Trump is a failure.

I wouldn't call someone a failure so early into their term, but so far I can see why people would be queueing up to call him a failure. If he maintains his current trajectory, I would have him in the same category as Obama, a lower category than even Bush.

Calina

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe they aren't for you, but they certainly are for me, and just about everyone else because I've yet to see 1 in office.

FDR lost the use of his legs after contracting polio and is considered to be amongst the very best presidents the USA has had. It is nothing to be proud of, discriminating against people with disabilities.

InTheTrees

Rightwing wrote: »

I wouldn't call someone a failure so early into their term, but so far I can see why people would be queueing up to call him a failure.

At some point you'll have to say what you think his successes are or we'll just keep going around in circles.

Healthcare was a failure, border wall a failure, immigrant ban a failure...

relax carry on

Rightwing wrote: »

I wouldn't call someone a failure so early into their term, but so far I can see why people would be queueing up to call him a failure. If he maintains his current trajectory, I would have him in the same category as Obama, a lower category than even Bush.

Who would be your ideal president then from all who have gone before just so we can figure out your scale of success or failure.
Also how does Trump compare to your ideal so far?

Rightwing

relax carry on wrote: »

Who would be your ideal president then from all who have gone before just so we can figure out your scale of success or failure.

We'd be gone off on a tangent, but suffice to say they've managed to get total failures since Bush senior onwards.

Valord

Rightwing wrote: »

We'd be gone off on a tangent, but suffice to say they've managed to get total failures since Bush senior onwards.

So Ronald Reagan then?

Rightwing

Valord wrote: »

So Ronald Reagan then?

We must remember that the policies of one president can greatly impact on the success of others. Obama for instance may have been a great president in the 70's. But he got a bad hand from Bush and made it worse, now Trump is in an impossible situation.
What we can say is, since Reagan, America has gone from a position of economic greatness with zero debt, to a country with a massive debt problem, deficit, ageing population with a pensions timebomb on the horizon. Got involved in several costly wars, caused mayhem in several parts of the globe.

America needs a president who untangle itself from the above. That's essentially what the American electorate voted for in Trump. If he succeeds I will call him great, if he doesn't a failure. So far, the odds are on a complete failure.

Leroy42

Slightly OT, but this notion that Obama was a failure is put out there all the time.

There is no doubt that Obama achieved less than the high hopes that people had, hopes he stoked to get elected.

But he took over from W Bush, and if he did nothing else he stopped the complete collapse of the markets and US economy as a whole. Obviously people have forgotten just how perilous a situation it was. McCain and Obama both suspended their campaigns to attend a meeting in Washington to try to get something happening. Sure the growth over the last 8 years was nothing special, but it was growth. The alternative was the complete basked case that W Bush left behind.

Secondly, and I understand that this is no really valued by the US voters, but Obama got US 'liked' again. After 9/11, most countries were on the side of the US, but as time went on and W Bush made things worse, by the end of his term the US was seen as almost not welcome. Anti US sentiment was growing around the world. Not just the normal Anti Capitalist Pigs stuff, but normally pro US countries like Ireland were moving steadily away. Obama fixed this. Sure he might have all been BS, but it was sold well. That is very positive for the US.

Trump seems to be hell bent on erasing all that work in as short a time as possible.

Harika

Rightwing wrote: »

I wouldn't call someone a failure so early into their term, but so far I can see why people would be queueing up to call him a failure. If he maintains his current trajectory, I would have him in the same category as Obama, a lower category than even Bush.

Okay, so let's look two years into the future, how would you define a successful Trump presidency and how a not successful Trump presidency?

Edit:
I give you mine, some are harder to achieve than others in all fairness:
Successful:
Replaced Obamacare with a cheaper healthcare system that reaches more people
Reduced unemployment to a lower level than today
Stabilize middle east, ukraine and north korea situation
Get funding for border wall and start process
Pass Tax reform


Not successful:
Obamacare implodes no substitute as replacement, millions without health insurance
Unemployment levels stay or raise
Fuel middle east, ukraine and north korea crisis with escalating into open war
Abandon border wall project
Abandon tax reform

Rightwing

Harika wrote: »

Okay, so let's look two years into the future, how would you define a successful Trump presidency and how a not successful Trump presidency?

He needs to:

Build the wall
Secure the borders
Fiscal conservatism
Forget about Syria etc
Hit China with a trade war