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

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Simply hoping that Trump goes away and everything goes back to 'normal' seems to be the current plan.

Of course Trump is going away - the question is if he can stagger along for four years. I think the Republicans will turn on him before the mid-terms when they are looking into the abyss.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course Trump is going away - the question is if he can stagger along for four years. I think the Republicans will turn on him before the mid-terms when they are looking into the abyss.

Of course Trump will eventually go away, but it may not be only 4 years and the effects of what he does during his time will be felt long after.

And whilst Trump may go, you can bet that the next one along will be all the same rhetoric and ideas but with a better handle on PR and administration.

Trump is easy to dismiss because of his antics but he is clearly speaking for a large % of the US citizens. Their views aren't going to change whether Trump is there or not.

And therein lies the danger with just accepting it and hoping it goes away. You need to actively oppose it so that it doesn't become the norm. We already see how Trump has changed the norm. Suddenly tax returns are no longer important, nepotism is accepted, debate and consensus is to be avoided, everything is a battle and every battle must be won, those that question you are treated as hostile.

Facts are whatever you think they should be.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course Trump is going away - the question is if he can stagger along for four years. I think the Republicans will turn on him before the mid-terms when they are looking into the abyss.

More wishful thinking. On what basis do you think that will happen? The latest election returned a GOP candidate, so far from looking at the abyss they are seeing a voting public that at best seems disengaged and probably just don't care.

Any of the recent polls etc show that support amongst previous Trump voters is holding up very well. They have bought into the idea that all the negative news around Trump is merely fake news and that he is being actively withheld from MAGA.

At the same time DNC numbers are not going up (in any meaningful way). At the current rate, the GOP simply have to hold their nerve and get through the difficult times (as they are doing very well at the moment).

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

And whilst Trump may go, you can bet that the next one along will be all the same rhetoric and ideas but with a better handle on PR and administration.

No chance. The next one in will be a Democrat, and will be elected on the basis that they are the anti-Trump.

And the Rs will have learned a lesson in the Primarys - this time they refused to unite behind a Republican candidate, preferring to fight it out to be ahead whenever Trump crashed and burned, and he never did. They won't make that mistake again.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The latest election returned a GOP candidate

Well of course it did in that district - Trump won there by 20%. Gianforte only won by 7 points. If the Rs drop 13% vs. Trumps vote in the midterms, they'll get destroyed.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No chance. The next one in will be a Democrat, and will be elected on the basis that they are the anti-Trump.

And the Rs will have learned a lesson in the Primarys - this time they refused to unite behind a Republican candidate, preferring to fight it out to be ahead whenever Trump crashed and burned, and he never did. They won't make that mistake again.

What lesson? The only lesson they may have learned is that they should've got behind Trump sooner.

Trump won POTUS, they won both the House and the Senate. Politics is about winning. Whilst the DNC can congratulate themselves on how pure and liberal and intellectual they are, GOP are busy winning and putting in place the policies they want.

You are letting you bias get in the way of the facts. There are no been a mass movement away from the GOP. The won the latest congressional election and have more than enough seats to be able to sustain a certain amount of losses without any major impact.

the only reason that GOP is currently is under pressure is nothing to do with DNC. The DNC are not putting forward way better policies. Currently GOP are struggling with the twin issues of a flaky POTUS and having to change from a "oppose everything" mindset into a "deliver actual results" mindset. The main area of concern for the GOP is that currently they are coming across as unprepared. They will get that sorted soon enough.

OFr example Obamacare is not suddenly accepted in the US, its just that the GOP seemed to have, somehow, come up with something even worse. Sort out that and many will be more than happy to see Obamacare gone.

DNS seem to be totally reliant on Trump continuing to explode and the GOP to continue to be useless. In the same way as Europe seems to think that biding their time and wishing Trump away is a viable strategy, DNC seems to think the exact same.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No chance. The next one in will be a Democrat, and will be elected on the basis that they are the anti-Trump.

And the Rs will have learned a lesson in the Primarys - this time they refused to unite behind a Republican candidate, preferring to fight it out to be ahead whenever Trump crashed and burned, and he never did. They won't make that mistake again.

June 20th will tell us a lot there. I do hope you're right, but I'm not holding my breath.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

GOP are busy winning and putting in pace the policies they want.

Yep, they are winning so much they are getting tired of it.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

What lesson? The only lesson they may have learned is that they should've got behind Trump sooner.

Trump won POTUS, they won both the House and the Senate. Politics is about winning. Whilst the DNC can congratulate themselves on how pure and liberal and intellectual they are, GOP are busy winning and putting in place the policies they want.

You are letting you bias get in the way of the facts. There are no been a mass movement away from the GOP. The won the latest congressional election and have more than enough seats to be able to sustain a certain amount of losses without any major impact.

the only reason that GOP is currently is under pressure is nothing to do with DNC. The DNC are not putting forward way better policies. Currently GOP are struggling with the twin issues of a flaky POTUS and having to change from a "oppose everything" mindset into a "deliver actual results" mindset. The main area of concern for the GOP is that currently they are coming across as unprepared. They will get that sorted soon enough.

OFr example Obamacare is not suddenly accepted in the US, its just that the GOP seemed to have, somehow, come up with something even worse. Sort out that and many will be more than happy to see Obamacare gone.

DNS seem to be totally reliant on Trump continuing to explode and the GOP to continue to be useless. In the same way as Europe seems to think that biding their time and wishing Trump away is a viable strategy, DNC seems to think the exact same.

There will be a temporary movement away from the GOP. There is always a movement away from the ruling party and Trump is more unpopular than most. It won't be every seat. Places like Montana are relatively safe.

Trump was largely helped by Clinton being favourite for the down ballot races. Clinton was unpopular and the thought of her having so much control was unpalatable. They picked Reps down ballot to counter her.

If you look at the 4 races since Trump's election Reps have consistently run 13% behind the Presidential election. If the Reps are smart they will find a primary challenger as a win in 2016 does not guarantee a win in 2020 when they can't just give out about the opposition.

I fully believe there will be a movement away from the GOP. Not near as large as they deserve and largely temporary but a moment all the same.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

There will be a temporary movement away from the GOP. There is always a movement away from the ruling party and Trump is more unpopular than most.

I recall people saying after Obama's win that the demographics which allowed a black guy to win meant the Republicans might never win again - no more old white guys, and that the Republican would have to build until they could field a Hispanic guy or a black woman or whatever.

Which all turned out to be nonsense.

Similarly now, people are saying Trump is part of a new wave of non-traditional populists, and we have to get used to them, they can never be beaten again.

More nonsense. He is an aberration, and has been a stumbling, ineffectual joke since his election. If he gets to run again (which I doubt) he will be beaten by the biggest margin in modern times.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

More nonsense. He is an aberration, and has been a stumbling, ineffectual joke since his election. If he gets to run again (which I doubt) he will be beaten by the biggest margin in modern times.

Depends what you mean by 'modern times' - of the 538 EC votes, Reagan & Bush Snr won 489, 525 and 426 over three elections, which also proved to be the real catalyst for the "give no ground" loony right we know today.

No matter what, under any circumstances bar exactly, none, any GOP candidate is 100% guaranteed of around 130-150 EC votes. Don't forget the GOP won 173 seats in 2008, 144 of them by close to/over 10% of the statewide popular vote, in the midst of the biggest recession in over 80 years that they themselves had caused, on top of the whole Iraq clusterf*** really beginning to show itself.

aloyisious

So to get rid of Don before his term is up, a major present-day hiccup by him is needed that the GOP faithful won't let slide and will tell the congress and senate GOP members "he has to be got rid of, and got rid of now!" outside the present row of Russian messing with their votes. As the mice were playing in the W/H while he was away, I assume he'll want to stop them dead.

It'd be nice if he thought the leaks were inspired by some-one who was in the US at the time and called that person out on it. Kushner, Bannon, Tillerson were with him so they weren't the mice. If he were to have a major row with Mike Pence and decided [Don fashion] to do away with Mike's services, that might tip the scales as it requires a vote in the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to do so.

I don't know who the senior officials were telling the papers about their Int briefings [senate/house maybe]. Senior DOJ staffers or Nat Sec or Homeland staffers might have access to such briefings. Firing one or more of them randomly in anger might also tip the balance.

The odds of the GOP having Don as their nominee, even as he's in situ, in 2020 must be going down with his popularity.

Quin_Dub

The ONLY thing that will make the GOP do anything is a significant dip in support for Trump from GOP Voters..

That has not happened yet , he's still above 80% support with Republican voters.

If he stays there , he's 100% safe , no matter what happens..

If that number starts heading south - Like into the 60's , then and only then will they start thinking about supporting any Dem actions against him..

To be fair , the Dems wouldn't behave a whole lot differently given a similar set of circumstances...

Billy86

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To be fair , the Dems wouldn't behave a whole lot differently given a similar set of circumstances...

Except their voters would, which is a key difference (see the Obama/Trump Syria example above). Not to say the Dems don't have "no matter what" voters among them, but it doesn't even compare to the Republicans.

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The ONLY thing that will make the GOP do anything is a significant dip in support for Trump from GOP Voters..

That has not happened yet , he's still above 80% support with Republican voters.

When Rs start losing safe R districts in special elections, they'll turn to save themselves from mid-term losses.

Democrats won 5 of 6 special elections in 1974 - Nixon resigned in August.

Quin_Dub

Billy86 wrote: »

Except their voters would, which is a key difference (see the Obama/Trump Syria example above). Not to say the Dems don't have "no matter what" voters among them, but it doesn't even compare to the Republicans.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When Rs start losing safe R districts in special elections, they'll turn to save themselves from mid-term losses.

Democrats won 5 of 6 special elections in 1974 - Nixon resigned in August.

Exactly - When it starts to hurt them at the ballot, with Republican voters..

They couldn't care less about public opinion among anyone else..

The fact that Democrat voters might turn away quicker from a bad President/Senator/Congressman than a typical GOP voter doesn't alter that simple fact that public opinion only matters to all politicians when it impacts their votes...

So all the Bad Press and International embarrassment means absolutely nothing until the GOP lose a seat they expect to win or until Trumps Satisfaction among GOP voters drops significantly...

And neither of those things have happened yet - It would be interesting if you could see the Montana vote broken down by Postal vs. Ballot box votes , e.g. What was the vote like after the Assault went public?

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When Rs start losing safe R districts in special elections, they'll turn to save themselves from mid-term losses.

Democrats won 5 of 6 special elections in 1974 - Nixon resigned in August.

True, though I'd be certain Trump wouldn't go as Nixon did. Nixon was (even if a terrible person) a pretty brilliant mind and incredibly shrewd. Trump is a mentally ill narcissist and sociopath with delusions of grandeur and invincibility.

He's also a child...

RobertKK

I know US voters who say they are physically sick of their country being in bed with Saudi Arabia.
Hillary clearly was, Trump blamed the Saudis for 9/11 during the election campaign and then we had the fiasco of last week, in Saudi Arabia and blaming Saudis enemy Iran for terrorism, which is not a nation funding ISIS or AQ like the allies Trump now praises.

Iran was correct when the Ayatollah came out and said to the Saudis that they have bought western allies, but they are not proper allies. I don't know anyone in the west who would be happy to say Saudi Arabia is our ally.

Trump went along as if he forgot everything he had said about that miserable country (SA), and instead attacked Iran which hasn't been responsible for the current terrorism issues in the west and elsewhere.

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - When it starts to hurt them at the ballot, with Republican voters..

No, that is not the same thing. I expect Republican voters to keep voting Republican, but Independents to turn on Trump, leading to Democrats winning formerly safe Republican seats.

Then the Rs will dump Trump. Nixon was preparing to fight impeachment - I think Trump is sure to.

Water John

If Kushner is gone, or otherwise preoccupied, to protect Trump's back, then the whole dynamic changes.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

I know US voters who say they are physically sick of their country being in bed with Saudi Arabia.
Hillary clearly was, Trump blamed the Saudis for 9/11 during the election campaign and then we had the fiasco of last week, in Saudi Arabia and blaming Saudis enemy Iran for terrorism, which is not a nation funding ISIS or AQ like the allies Trump now praises.

Iran was correct when the Ayatollah came out and said to the Saudis that they have bought western allies, but they are not proper allies. I don't know anyone in the west who would be happy to say Saudi Arabia is our ally.

Trump went along as if he forgot everything he had said about that miserable country (SA), and instead attacked Iran which hasn't been responsible for the current terrorism issues in the west and elsewhere.

I would have congratulated him if he fobbed them off, but for reasons stated above it's hard to be exclusively upset with him about our stance with them.

Itssoeasy

RobertKK wrote: »

I know US voters who say they are physically sick of their country being in bed with Saudi Arabia.
Hillary clearly was, Trump blamed the Saudis for 9/11 during the election campaign and then we had the fiasco of last week, in Saudi Arabia and blaming Saudis enemy Iran for terrorism, which is not a nation funding ISIS or AQ like the allies Trump now praises.

Iran was correct when the Ayatollah came out and said to the Saudis that they have bought western allies, but they are not proper allies. I don't know anyone in the west who would be happy to say Saudi Arabia is our ally.

Trump went along as if he forgot everything he had said about that miserable country (SA), and instead attacked Iran which hasn't been responsible for the current terrorism issues in the west and elsewhere.

Trump went along with it because the Saudi massaged his ego.

Sam Russell

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump went along with it because the Saudi massaged his ego.

Does Saudi Arabia not have the same misogynist views he holds so dear?

Leroy42

It really is odd.

He seems to hate all the normal allies (Britain as deluded if they think any deal with US will be positive for them) and has great time for their traditional foes.

I'm all for creating new dialogue and looking to reset but this seems utterly foolhardy and very dangerous for Europe in particular

Putin will be thinking of pushing some borders to see how they react. Given their total failure in Ukraine Putin must consider Europe as significantly weaker than previously

aloyisious

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does Saudi Arabia not have the same misogynist views he holds so dear?

Yes, and in capital letters, with their version of the book to back their stance, and then some. The degree of the Saudi co-operation in the Trump visit was great. I looked at the photos of Melania Trump while she was in Saudi Arabia, incl the one where she emerged from a woman's BPS and IT Centre dressed in an open-necked "quasi-military" style knee-length dress without head-dress and thought that woman is making a statement with the willingness of the Saudi's.

@ Leroy:if Don stays put in the Oval Office for the next few years, I'm wondering if and when the European branch of NATO decides to say "enough is enough" and tell Don to stick his isolationism where it hurts if he wants it that way, deciding to coalesce its forces and money within a European TOW and leave the US without foreign bases [forward bases] from which to defend the US borders. I know that would seem to be an extreme case but Don is proclaiming he'll make America great again in military terms while pissing on its allies. Take a look at the Philipines and how it's president is fighting against Muslim [Isis-related] insurgency and saying that he will be asking Putin for weaponry to help him win that war, which is here and now.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Y@ Leroy:if Don stays put in the Oval Office for the next few years, I'm wondering if and when the European branch of NATO decides to say "enough is enough" and tell Don to stick his isolationism where it hurts if he wants it that way, deciding to coalesce its forces and money within a European TOW and leave the US without foreign bases [forward bases] from which to defend the US borders . . .

No. Every US administration is time-limited, and European leaders will be hoping the Trump administration is more time-limited that most. Either way, sooner or later there will be a new adminsitration under a different President, and European leaders will be hoping for better days then. They won't burn their bridges with the US over one dimwitted blowhard, even if he is the President; they'll hunker down and wait. It's only if Trump is replaced with an equally Trumpish successor that they would think about such long term changes.

Billy86

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Every US administration is time-limited, and European leaders will be hoping the Trump administration is more time-limited that most. Either way, sooner or later there will be a new adminsitration under a different President, and European leaders will be hoping for better days then. They won't burn their bridges with the US over one dimwitted blowhard, even if he is the President; they'll hunker down and wait. It's only if Trump is replaced with an equally Trumpish successor that they would think about such long term changes.

Mostly true, though the Russian interference in the US election and potential collusion with his campaign likely impacts that further given Russian attempts to interfere in European elections with is not something they can abide by. I think we'll see a lot of attempts to force US Congress' hand on the matter (note to Trump fans: this is not collusion, it is voicing displeasure openly in public). Macron really seems to be stepping to the forefront a bit despite being so early on in his leadership here, calling out Sputnik and RT as Russian propaganda machines as he stood right beside Putin; will be very interested to see how his presidency goes on this front.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Every US administration is time-limited, and European leaders will be hoping the Trump administration is more time-limited that most. Either way, sooner or later there will be a new adminsitration under a different President, and European leaders will be hoping for better days then. They won't burn their bridges with the US over one dimwitted blowhard, even if he is the President; they'll hunker down and wait. It's only if Trump is replaced with an equally Trumpish successor that they would think about such long term changes.

True, at the present time. But given the lack of respect for the legal system, for congress, for traditions etc that Trump has shown and the the GOP has embraced (remember that Trump was running the line that the whole voting system was rigged and even now is continuing with the unbased claim of 5m+ illegals votes all going to the Dems) it doesn't take too much of a leap to see both Trump and the GOP trying to jimmy the rules to ensure that he, or at least the GOP, can retain power. He has claimed an ex POTUS carried out illegal wiretapping against him, without any evidence and nothing was done. He allowed the NSA director to lie to the VPOTUS and took no action. He has allowed nepotism, massive conflicts of interests, made significant money out of utilising his own businesses in government business. He has taken actions (such as divulging top secret intel) on the basis of he wanted to. He clearly has only a passing interest in the truth or facts.

Take this commission for voting review he has set up. Does anybody really think it will return anything other than a restriction on voting, more ability of councillors to change the rules and imposition of additional requirements that will disadvantage the less well off (traditionally Dem voters).

Trump has already tried to gut the press, his spokesman has said that the only place people need to get there news is through them!

And if not Trump, then based on how successful Trump has been and seemingly immune from censor or backlash for his own supporters, again it does not take too big a leap to assume that the next administration will follow along the same lines.

European leaders of course will be hoping for a return to 'normal' but at the present time it certainly looks for from certain that will be the case. The GOP have shown, already in the short time of Trump being POTUS, that they are none too concerned with the nicities of the system and happy to allow pretty much anything as ling as they see potential progress on their ideas (Tax reform etc).

Billy86

In other news, tourism to the US is plummeting as predicted - down as much as 16% from October. There's still the summer to go but it's looking pretty awful so far. As of the election last year tourism employed over 5mn people; coal mining employed 77,000 (1.4% of 5.5mn).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/international-travel-u-sees-double-190800415.html

Donald Trump in the White House has foreign tourists saying, "Thanks, but no thanks," on travel to the United States.

International tourism in the U.S. is down by as much as 16% since October 2016, according to a new analysis from Foursquare. While the data doesn't pinpoint the exact cause of the decline, there is little doubt the president's rhetoric on immigration and controversial travel ban are at least partially to blame. And the dip in travel to the U.S. could have big implications for a number of U.S. industries and the economy at large.

It found that the U.S.'s market share of international travel fell by 6% year-over-year in October and continued to decrease through March 2016, when it dropped by 16% year-over-year. Currently, there is no sign of recovery in the data.

There is somewhat of an error in that article though, claiming "Currency exchange rates could be partially to blame for the decline in international travel to the United States. The dollar has strengthened in recent months, and the euro is down, which could make European travel more attractive. ". In the first few weeks of Trump's presidency the USD was worth 95-96c against the Euro... i nrecent weeks it has slumped down considerably to 89c.

Kitsunegari

According to the data US tourism started to decline in October. Also, according to the NTTO January and February were record months for foreign tourism spending in the US.

Also, the article fails to mention that FourSquare's method of calculation is biased as it's partly based on those that use the FourSquare App. The data that FourSquare has provided also doesn't correlate with data obtained from booking sites, hotels, airlines etc so far. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding travel numbers in the US has come from NY and other major cities tourist boards who decided to cut expected tourism numbers based on the rationale that Trump would drive foreign tourists away.

Expedia jumped the gun and cut prices in March and said their data for Q1 would show the decline in passenger numbers but that still hasn't happened as far as I'm aware.

That's a lazy enough article but what would you expect from Yahoo.