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

Inquitus

From the WaPo, reads a bit like his doctor's assessment of his health....

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a statement about President Trump on Monday that is so disconnected from reality that it reads like a parody — like something “Saturday Night Live” cooked up to mimic propaganda.

Here it is:

President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor … and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.b21b310bb47d

Water John

Hicks must be hoping to move up the ladder, with the resignation, this morning.
(pun intended)

InTheTrees

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

Tax cuts for the 1% is their only goal. All the rest is just to make that happen. They don't care about healthcare one way or another but taking it away from people frees up money for a tax break so that's why its important to them.

Imagine how hard you'd be laughing into your brandy and caviar knowing that 60 million mostly poor people voted you into power so you could take some more of what little they have and give it to yourself and your rich friends. And that they elected you based on you pretty much having told them you were going to do that. It beggars belief.

Yes, and additionally those same voters adamantly will not believe any negativity towards their leader either.

Kitsunegari

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Imagine how hard you'd be laughing into your brandy and caviar knowing that 60 million mostly poor people voted you into power so you could take some more of what little they have and give it to yourself and your rich friends. And that they elected you based on you pretty much having told them you were going to do that. It beggars belief.

Isn't that essentially what most politicians do anyway? Succesive trade deals have removed jobs from the very same demographic that you're having a cheap laugh at and they continually propose policies that continue to increase the cost of living and increasing the wealth divide in the US. An education costs a fortune and neither party has a healthcare or education policy that benefits the poorest of people. But let's deride them and have a few cheap laughs at how smarter you are than them.

Nody

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Isn't that essentially what most politicians do anyway? Succesive trade deals have removed jobs from the very same demographic that you're having a cheap laugh at and they continually propose policies that continue to increase the cost of living and increasing the wealth divide in the US. An education costs a fortune and neither party has a healthcare or education policy that benefits the poorest of people. But let's deride them and have a few cheap laughs at how smarter you are than them.

One party wants to remove 23 million poor Americans from healthcare, remove ambulance services from basic insurance, remove after birth support etc. and cut the food cards; the other party does not yet they are somehow equal. I'm all for a debate but honestly trying to equalise the Republican plan for healthcare with what Obama care delivers today is honestly like saying, well if I get stung by a wasp or get my arm cut off it's both going to hurt ain't it so what's the difference anyway?

...And Justice

As the title says. I'm posting here for a proper discussion on the subject. There are a couple of things I have noticed since the election of trump.

1) He want's to do away with anything that has to do with "green energy"

Answer) It's a massive problem for the oil geen back dollar, everything is traded in "petro dollars" so by pulling out of climate change he's securing the future of fossil fuels in principle.

2) Diesel and petrol will be obsolete in the next 20 years, we'll all be driving electric cars.

Answer) The dollar will be useless, at least for modern day to day transport?

3) The Saudi government are quietly crápping themselves, Trump has gone over to re-assure them trading oil in dollars will be good in the future.

Answer) If everyone moves to smart green energy and electric cars, where does the oil dollar stand and the American economy?

I don't know what really the Dollar can support in the future or convince countries to trade in Dollars if oil is not supporting the green back, I'd love to hear opinions on this.

A world war and adjustment of priorities would probably solve the American oil issue in the long run. But I don't see It going smoothly, hence the title.

Mod note - merged with Donald Trump Thread

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Isn't that essentially what most politicians do anyway? Succesive trade deals have removed jobs from the very same demographic that you're having a cheap laugh at and they continually propose policies that continue to increase the cost of living and increasing the wealth divide in the US. An education costs a fortune and neither party has a healthcare or education policy that benefits the poorest of people. But let's deride them and have a few cheap laughs at how smarter you are than them.

Again this really seems to equalise the party that wants to remove healthcare from 23 million people to fund a tax break for the rich with the party that wants the's people to have health insurance and indeed would have been working to improve the existing plan.

Also are you not allowed give out about the plan the ruling party is coming up with?

The trade deals are not what is removing jobs. Cheap Chinese labour and technology are removing jobs. The issue is we haven't dealt with technology well. We are far more efficient than we used to be and yet we just seem to have decided that those left with no jobs are lazy.

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's very easy to refute. FourSquare isn't a reliable measurement of travel. What part of that don't you understand? There is no need to go back to that Yahoo article as it's complete tripe and amazingly it's tripe that works because here you are still defending it.

Backfire effect in full swing.

Thank you for proving my point by yet again wilfully ignoring all of the other sources given both in that article and others given. You're supposed to point out the information inside the article and not just try to write it off when your initial reason is shown for what it is, by the way.

Celticfire wrote: »

Nothing like putting Trump in the headline to garner clicks.

Strange how they'd bring up the guy supposed to be running the country when talking about how the country is running, eh?

Billy86

Nody wrote: »

One party wants to remove 23 million poor Americans from healthcare, remove ambulance services from basic insurance, remove after birth support etc. and cut the food cards; the other party does not yet they are somehow equal. I'm all for a debate but honestly trying to equalise the Republican plan for healthcare with what Obama care delivers today is honestly like saying, well if I get stung by a wasp or get my arm cut off it's both going to hurt ain't it so what's the difference anyway?

And that's without going into the reason Obamacare isn't further reaching in the first place. Hint: it's the elephant in the room.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

A warning isn't a measurement. Yeah, they all said the same thing which was complete nonsense.

Have you any other wildly speculative and poorly researched articles to back up your sensationalist point?

Apart from Fox, Bloomberg, Time, the FT and Forbes? Why yes, yes I do have some authorative sources that refute your argument and to augment my point.


Here's some quotes from two articles:

The plea comes amid mounting signs that President Trump’s initial order, which imposed restrictions on visitors from certain high-risk countries and pledged a security review of overall visa procedures, has had a broad chilling effect on demand for international travel to the United States.

U.S. Travel Association President and CEO Roger Dow believes many international travelers may have drastically misunderstood Trump’s intentions as wanting to discourage international visitors generally, not just those who pose a security risk.

and:

However, these anomalous growth patterns (international travel growing, domestic travel slowing), are expected to revert back to their previous norms in the months ahead, according to the TTI’s predictive Leading Travel Index (LTI). International travel will likely decelerate,

U.S. Travel economists still warn of a drop-off in international travel going forward.


Now, where do you think I got those quotes? They came from two articles somebody linked to earlier on in the thread. Have a guess who posted them to bolster their argument (hint: they are your links).

Both articles state in no uncertain fashion that Trump has negatively affected tourism.

You really should read your own links. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

Strange how they'd bring up the guy supposed to be running the country when talking about how the country is running, eh?

Even stranger they use a tabloid headline but offer not one iota of proof, eh?

Igotadose

Another day, another Russia Collusion news item: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/30/intel-committee-issues-subpoena-for-trumps-personal-attorney-in-ongoing-russia-investigation.html

Trump's lawyer refused to talk to the Senate committee. He's been subpoena'd now. Some interesting articles about this guy Cohen, yet another Trump insider with some weird things with his daughter; tweeted pictures of her in her underwear.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-defends-posting-photo-daughter-lingerie-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

Even stranger they use a tabloid headline but offer not one iota of proof, eh?

Not nearly as strange as ignoring all the proof given and then claiming to have seen no proof.

For Forks Sake

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Imagine how hard you'd be laughing into your brandy and caviar knowing that 60 million mostly poor people voted you into power so you could take some more of what little they have and give it to yourself and your rich friends. And that they elected you based on you pretty much having told them you were going to do that. It beggars belief.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

Not nearly as strange as ignoring all the proof given and then claiming to have seen no proof.

Originally Posted by Billy86
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

The article you posted proves nothing that it claimed in it's sensationalist headline.

...And Justice

...And Justice wrote: »

As the title says. I'm posting here for a proper discussion on the subject. There are a couple of things I have noticed since the election of trump.

1) He want's to do away with anything that has to do with "green energy"

Answer) It's a massive problem for the oil geen back dollar, everything is traded in "petro dollars" so by pulling out of climate change he's securing the future of fossil fuels in principle.

2) Diesel and petrol will be obsolete in the next 20 years, we'll all be driving electric cars.

Answer) The dollar will be useless, at least for modern day to day transport?

3) The Saudi government are quietly crápping themselves, Trump has gone over to re-assure them trading oil in dollars will be good in the future.

Answer) If everyone moves to smart green energy and electric cars, where does the oil dollar stand and the American economy?

I don't know what really the Dollar can support in the future or convince countries to trade in Dollars if oil is not supporting the green back, I'd love to hear opinions on this.

A world war and adjustment of priorities would probably solve the American oil issue in the long run. But I don't see It going smoothly, hence the title.

Mod note - merged with Donald Trump Thread

This post has been lost, I'm bumping it.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

The article you posted proves nothing that it claimed in it's sensationalist headline.

The article says tourism is suffering which is what I said and what the link says.

But I'm sure Trump's attempts at Muslim bans, the increased instances of white supremacist terror incidents and hate crimes that have spiked since he took office (shocking, I know), the poor relations he is having with many of the countries that typically send the most tourists to the US, and the generally woeful opinion of him as well as the current climate of the US most of the world have at the moment would have anything to do with that.

No siree bob, nothing at all. Why to come to such a conclusion would require actual thought.

Kitsunegari

Nody wrote: »

One party wants to remove 23 million poor Americans from healthcare, remove ambulance services from basic insurance, remove after birth support etc. and cut the food cards; the other party does not yet they are somehow equal. I'm all for a debate but honestly trying to equalise the Republican plan for healthcare with what Obama care delivers today is honestly like saying, well if I get stung by a wasp or get my arm cut off it's both going to hurt ain't it so what's the difference anyway?

They aren't equal. This is stereotypical strawman stuff that you continually hear from the democrat defenders on here.

How does a healthcare policy that fines poor people for not having cover an acceptable or defendable policy?

Obamacare was a decent start but it's still highly flawed. Just becuase the conservative bill is worse doesn't mean we should be defending or cheerleading the Democrats policy.

It's as if you can't state the obvious and anything less than universal health care is unacceptable. Again, stating both policies are poor isn't equalising them but for some reason on this forum we're oversensitise to any critism of the Democrats.

Being a less terrible party isn't something to cheerlead about.

Kitsunegari

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Apart from Fox, Bloomberg, Time, the FT and Forbes? Why yes, yes I do have some authorative sources that refute your argument and to augment my point.


Here's some quotes from two articles:

The plea comes amid mounting signs that President Trump’s initial order, which imposed restrictions on visitors from certain high-risk countries and pledged a security review of overall visa procedures, has had a broad chilling effect on demand for international travel to the United States.

U.S. Travel Association President and CEO Roger Dow believes many international travelers may have drastically misunderstood Trump’s intentions as wanting to discourage international visitors generally, not just those who pose a security risk.

and:

However, these anomalous growth patterns (international travel growing, domestic travel slowing), are expected to revert back to their previous norms in the months ahead, according to the TTI’s predictive Leading Travel Index (LTI). International travel will likely decelerate,

U.S. Travel economists still warn of a drop-off in international travel going forward.


Now, where do you think I got those quotes? They came from two articles somebody linked to earlier on in the thread. Have a guess who posted them to bolster their argument (hint: they are your links).

Both articles state in no uncertain fashion that Trump has negatively affected tourism.

You really should read your own links. Seriously, it's embarrassing.

Again, this is not what we're talking about. You continually engage in strawman arguments on here. What was said in the original article was that a travel slump since October is being blamed on Trump. Current statistics from the USTA refute that fact. I already conceded that travel may be down and Trump may be a factor in that. What is happening is that travel agencies are not getting as many bookings for future dates and current dates. The apparent Trump effect was probably not a factor until the executive order which is backed up by what you said above. You were arguing about him being a factor in poor travel numbers from October when that clearly hasn't been the case.

You were attempting to sensationalise the travel slump to fit the narrative of the FourSquare article. All the evidence you used above refutes that point.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

The article says tourism is suffering which is what I said and what the link says.

But I'm sure Trump's attempts at Muslim bans, the increased instances of white supremacist terror incidents and hate crimes that have spiked since he took office (shocking, I know), the poor relations he is having with many of the countries that typically send the most tourists to the US, and the generally woeful opinion of him as well as the current climate of the US most of the world have at the moment would have anything to do with that.

No siree bob, nothing at all. Why to come to such a conclusion would require actual thought.

You still haven't show where the article lived up to it's sensationalist headline. Everything you've posted there is your opinion and your opinion alone as to the reason tourism has declined. I don't need your biased conclusion. Your article failed to prove it's sensationalist headline and the fact that you can't show me where in the article it does but resort to whataboutery proves that.

As regards the upsurge in hate crimes most of those that got the most publicity and attributed to Trump being elected have been proven to be fake.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

They aren't equal. This is stereotypical strawman stuff that you continually hear from the democrat defenders on here.

How does a healthcare policy that fines poor people for not having cover an acceptable or defendable policy?

Obamacare was a decent start but it's still highly flawed. Just becuase the conservative bill is worse doesn't mean we should be defending or cheerleading the Democrats policy.

It's as if you can't state the obvious and anything less than universal health care is unacceptable. Again, stating both policies are poor isn't equalising them but for some reason on this forum we're oversensitise to any critism of the Democrats.

Being a less terrible party isn't something to cheerlead about.

No one has said Obama care is perfect. Including Obama. And yes it still reads like equalising especially on the Donald Trump thread and when a large reason it is that bad is because of Republicans. (And to think you opened up your post complaining about strawmen).

It is not overly sensitive to criticism of Democrats either. It is filling in the gaps in your post really.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Obamacare was a decent start but it's still highly flawed. Just becuase the conservative bill is worse doesn't mean we should be defending or cheerleading the Democrats policy.

The shortcomings in Obamacare can mostly be traced to Republican efforts to block its funding.

If the Republicans really wanted to do the right thing they'd take Obamacare and build on it and expand it so that it's fully funded instead of trying to write an "alternative" that is basically the same old George w Bush thinly veiled tax cut for the 1%.

Kitsunegari

InTheTrees wrote: »

The shortcomings in Obamacare can mostly be traced to Republican efforts to block its funding.

If the Republicans really wanted to do the right thing they'd take Obamacare and build on it and expand it so that it's fully funded instead of trying to write an "alternative" that is basically the same old George w Bush thinly veiled tax cut for the 1%.

No, what should be happening is that a party is pushing for universal health care. Anything else is just partisan cheerleading. I'm not sure how you can seriously argue that a fully funded ACA is better than universal health care. The right thing is to have universal health care.

Kitsunegari

And I'm tired of getting barraged with strawman arguments. I'll leave you gentlemen to continue to validate your partisan opinions, I stress!, to yourselves. I'm checking out.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

And I'm tired of getting barraged with strawman arguments. I'll leave you gentlemen to continue to validate your partisan opinions, I stress!, to yourselves. I'm checking out.

You are aware that you are the one providing the strawman arguments right? No one is arguing for ACA over universal health care. But hey this is the Donald Trump thread so what else would we be doing except giving out about Democrats not introducing universal health care. In spite of the fact that Republicans would have made doing this an impossibility and the ACA was intentionally brought in as a first step which it has been quite successful at given it is now too unpopular for the Republicans to simply repeal the thing and go back to the previous, far worse method of doing things. They have been reduced to attempts at attempting to chip away at it.

Your first post on this topic was giving out about a post that complained about the Republican plan FFS! Surely if you want the universal health care people should be let complain about the Republican plan.

Finally I reckon most of the so called democrat posters here would not in fact be model democrats. Most like myself would be to the left of them.

Water John

Perhaps we can now focus on Trump and his strange goings on.

Two tweets, the first saying the Russians must be laughing. The second, attacking Germany.
It hasn't clicked with Donald, that the second tweet is actually the reason the Russians are laughing.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again, this is not what we're talking about. You continually engage in strawman arguments on here. What was said in the original article was that a travel slump since October is being blamed on Trump. Current statistics from the USTA refute that fact. I already conceded that travel may be down and Trump may be a factor in that. What is happening is that travel agencies are not getting as many bookings for future dates and current dates. The apparent Trump effect was probably not a factor until the executive order which is backed up by what you said above. You were arguing about him being a factor in poor travel numbers from October when that clearly hasn't been the case.

You were attempting to sensationalise the travel slump to fit the narrative of the FourSquare article. All the evidence you used above refutes that point.

Umm no. And statistics don't refute that. Holidays are booked many months in advance. But I'm not following you down some labyrinthine deflection. I was simply quoting a variety of articles that supported the view that Trump negatively affected tourism.

The idea that Trump's campaign didn't affect how people across the world viewed travel to the US is simply ludicrous. His rants against Mexicans, Muslims, globalisation, etc. left a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone with half a brain.

Answer this question: Do you think that Trump's rhetoric and his policies, as a presidential candidate, made travel to the US more or less appealing to tourists?

ThisRegard

Kitsunegari wrote: »

They aren't equal. This is stereotypical strawman stuff that you continually hear from the democrat defenders on here..

What? Trying to change the narrative, again. All I've been reading is valid criticisms of the Trump Whitehouse that nobody had been able to defend without deflection, e.g. your quote above.

JRant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Umm no. And statistics don't refute that. Holidays are booked many months in advance. But I'm not following you down some labyrinthine deflection. I was simply quoting a variety of articles that supported the view that Trump negatively affected tourism.

The idea that Trump's campaign didn't affect how people across the world viewed travel to the US is simply ludicrous. His rants against Mexicans, Muslims, globalisation, etc. left a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone with half a brain.

Answer this question: Do you think that Trump's rhetoric and his policies, as a presidential candidate, made travel to the US more or less appealing to tourists?

I'd say the relative strength of the dollar, especially to the euro, is a main contributory factor in the decline of visitors. Trump may be a small factor but I just don't think it's the main one.

Professor Moriarty

JRant wrote: »

I'd say the relative strength of the dollar, especially to the euro, is a main contributory factor in the decline of visitors. Trump may be a small factor but I just don't think it's the main one.

That is a factor, no doubt. Hard to know if it is the main factor - some research will emerge no doubt. But the fact remains that Trump's campaign and presidency has seriously damaged the US tourism industry. And I don't think it is a small factor. For instance, I doubt very much if Muslims or Mexicans felt comfortable when thinking about holidays in the US after his rants.

Anecdotally (the best evidence...), I know of people who had half a mind to visit the US but were swayed by his performances in the debate. People genuinely find his rhetoric to be frightening and the fact that a (kind of) majority of people voted for him reflects badly on American society. Perception is everything and, at the moment, outsiders' perceptions of the US are not at all positive.