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

KingBrian2

ligerdub wrote: »

Could somebody explain something to me? Why is it that people are going on about Trump being a Putin puppet because he is looking to leave Russia be, but the same criticism is rather lower in volume when it comes to consistent and downright support of expansionist policies followed by Israel followed in perpetuity by US Presidents? (Ideally sticking to that question rather than tangents about being some sort of sexual deviant and thin-skinned individual etc.)

Why would it be a problem at all for the United States to just say "right, we aren't going to police this anymore, we are going to focus on improving things closer to home"? Why has it become that the US is now expected or indeed asked to intervene in these things? It's a relatively new thing. In fact, going back to the 1940's you'll find that the vast majority of people in the US, including their government, felt that the war in Europe had nothing to do with them. So why now?

Perhaps if it were left to more of a consensus view in global affairs rather than one country dictating terms the world would be a better place.

Because the world is too dependent on America's tender mercies and if America does not like you your gone. They tried that number on Pres Assad in Syria. Succeeded in Libya & Tunisia. They have their cheerleaders in Europe, the Gulf, South East Asia who will back them no matter how destructive their policies are. In a way i can understand their feeling on this the US has the most powerful army in the world and any country can be invaded just like that. Your not going to go against the superpower.

Billy86

baaba maal wrote: »

But he isn't disengaging with global geopolitics- as he cosies up to Putin, he is simultaneously ramping up the antagonism towards China- clearly attempting to show that the US is the boss in that situation.

Exactly, and it's not that he's just trying to be nice with Russia, he is hiding stuff as shown by his lying on record about his relationships there.

Zubeneschamali

ligerdub wrote: »

Why is it that people are going on about Trump being a Putin puppet because he is looking to leave Russia be, but the same criticism is rather lower in volume when it comes to consistent and downright support of expansionist policies followed by Israel

Because Israel is an American ally, while Russia is, how to put this, not.

Dancing to the tune of the Israelis is called supporting America's allies.

Dancing to Putin's tune is called Treason.

KingBrian2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because Israel is an American ally, while Russia is, how to put this, not.

Dancing to the tune of the Israelis is called supporting America's allies.

Dancing to Putin's tune is called Treason.

Not improving America's policy of a two state solution in the region. Biden & Kerry noted that Israel would no longer become democracy should it expand further into the settled areas.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

. In a way i can understand their feeling on this the US has the most powerful army in the world and any country can be invaded just like that. Your not going to go against the superpower.

But ukraine went against a local regional power with nuclear weapons and got invaded , occupied and part of their sovereign territory annexed but no mention of that ,
Cant keep blaming america when others are as bad if not worse

Yourself isit

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It points towards Putin's plans to expand West and Trump's intention to do nothing to oppose him. What harm does NATO do to Russia except in the event of Russian expansion west?

For all the talk about having good relations with Russia, where us the talk of having good relations with Europe? I haven't seen much. Trump us delighted with the UK'S brexit decision, why? Because it weakens Europe and the UK is just one country. It chops away at their ability to work together and they can be payed off against each other in a race to the bottom to secure contracts.

There's nothing good about trump from the perspective of peach and prosperity in Europe, that much is certain.

It's a long way from Bill Clinton making a serious effort to bring about peace in NI. This guy thrives on uncertainty and disunity in his competitors. It's incredible that some people actually want this type of leadership.

The reason the EU is a mess is because of the adventurism of the US on the middle east. Friends my ass.

Yourself isit

eire4 wrote: »

and a far right economic agenda that embraces the privatization of almost every public service, cutting social welfare and getting rid of regulations that protect both the public and the environment. Basically turning society into a neo feudal state run by an Oligarchic elite at the expense of the vast majority or the population.

Putin actually did reign in a few oligarchs and trump is hardly pro free market. Look at his immigration and free trade ideologies.

Yourself isit

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because Israel is an American ally, while Russia is, how to put this, not.

Dancing to the tune of the Israelis is called supporting America's allies.

Dancing to Putin's tune is called Treason.

Some would call both treason. Israel isn't friends with any country.

eire4

Yourself isit wrote: »

The reason the EU is a mess is because of the adventurism of the US on the middle east. Friends my ass.

There is a lot of truth to that I think. The at best hubris and at worst criminal behaviour of the US in the middle east starting in particular under George Bush was what lead to the destabilizing of the region and the current refugee and terrorist issues in the EU.

eire4

Yourself isit wrote: »

Putin actually did reign in a few oligarchs and trump is hardly pro free market. Look at his immigration and free trade ideologies.

Well Putin is an authoritarian dictator in essence so if he reigned in as you say some Oligarchs that would be no surprise. By the way who exactly did he reign in? Still does not change how Russia is run economically.
The chance to fully implement the radical socio-economic policies which the Republicans have wanted to has not fully presented itself to them until now when they have complete control of the federal government. Will shortly control the supreme court and are utterly dominant at the state level power wise also other then a handful of states. Although in piecemeal form for years they have been inching the US in that far right socio-economic direction as much as they can and the fact that the Democratic party has become over the years another corporate tool has only made this situation worse.

Yourself isit

eire4 wrote: »

Well Putin is an authoritarian dictator in essence so if he reigned in as you say some Oligarchs that would be no surprise. By the way who exactly did he reign in? Still does not change how Russia is run economically.
The chance to fully implement the radical socio-economic policies which the Republicans have wanted to has not fully presented itself to them until now when they have complete control of the federal government. Will shortly control the supreme court and are utterly dominant at the state level power wise also other then a handful of states. Although in piecemeal form for years they have been inching the US in that far right socio-economic direction as much as they can and the fact that the Democratic party has become over the years another corporate tool has only made this situation worse.

Yeh but trump isn't a libertarian. Paul Ryan is.

I bet he implements a Keynesian policy with support from his voters (who aren't traditional GOP voters anyway).

eire4

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yeh but trump isn't a libertarian. Paul Ryan is.

I bet he implements a Keynesian policy with support from his voters (who aren't traditional GOP voters anyway).

Time will tell. But the Republican party are very much from the Milton Freidman school of radical far right socio-economics. In any case there is no chance the Republican controlled house and senate would approve and pass Keynesian economic policies. That is absolutely anathema to them.

ligerdub

baaba maal wrote:

But he isn't disengaging with global geopolitics- as he cosies up to Putin, he is simultaneously ramping up the antagonism towards China- clearly attempting to show that the US is the boss in that situation.

He isn't talking up having a war (at least in terms of a military based one) with China. He's talking of getting tough with them in terms of deals being made.

In any event I asked about why there was a hullabaloo about his policy to avoid jumping in on conflicts that had nothing to do with his own country while there was silence about their presidents actively supporting expansionary policies of some foreign nations.

KingBrian2

ligerdub wrote: »

He isn't talking up having a war (at least in terms of a military based one) with China. He's talking of getting tough with them in terms of deals being made.

In any event I asked about why there was a hullabaloo about his policy to avoid jumping in on conflicts that had nothing to do with his own country while there was silence about their presidents actively supporting expansionary policies of some foreign nations.

As i said before America is a state sponsor of terrorism. They armed terrorists in Syria to oust the countries leader, theirs no telling what other country they will invade. They've gone drunk with power i tell yee.

Lets not forget interfering in the politics of Venezuela and collaborating with the coup plotters down there. The bullying and blackmailing of countries at the UN to toe the party line. Today the UN security council has become a joke with notable Saudi Arabia on the human rights committee.

ligerdub

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Because Israel is an American ally, while Russia is, how to put this, not.

Dancing to the tune of the Israelis is called supporting America's allies.

Dancing to Putin's tune is called Treason.

That's fairly subjective. As far as I knew Russia and the US were allies for the most part until Obama came about (pre-emptive note about the cold war being a long time ago). The Obama administration has increased hostilities with them and it has gone by with relatively little criticism rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps Trump isn't so much of a puppet of Putin more so that he might think it's not really in his interest to be so hostile there.

So it's ok to support heinous acts of some governments (one of a very small number of countries who do) so long as your buddy buddies?

This is all going away from my original point. My main target for this question isn't so much the big cheeses in the US, it's those regular folks and media commentators who are terrified of a Trump presidency.

As I say, I think it would be better for everyone if the US took a step back as dictating terms, be it Europe, the Middle East or elsewhere. If Trump steps away from Israel and conflict in Europe then I'd consider that a good thing. Less hostility with Russia is a good start IMO.

Just something to consider anyway. If you think otherwise fair enough.

Valord

ligerdub wrote: »

That's fairly subjective. As far as I knew Russia and the US were allies for the most part until Obama came about

Since WW2 ended, Russia and the US have never been "allies". And Obama was far from the only politician in the US to be wary of Putin. Until Trump came along, being anti-Putin was one of the few bipartisan issues left in American politics. Mitt Romney in a 2012 presidential debate named Russia as America's greatest enemy. Rubio demanded that Rex Tillerson call Putin a war criminal, something Obama hasn't done. George Bush tried to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe which was ostensibly to protect Europe from an Iranian attack but which the Russians were not at all pleased about. Nobody has ever indicated or been inclined to start an actual direct war with Russia, but they certainly have kept them at arm's length.

Ultimately though, the difference between criticising a country like Russia doing something aggressive and an allied nation like Israel isn't just that one is already a friend and one is not. Russia is a considerably more powerful country, which makes throwing it's weight around a much more worrying prospect. Russia could, in all likelihood, take back a fair section of the former USSR in an invasion, because it has the world's second most powerful military and a nuclear arsenal. Israel can't.

BuilderPlumber

ligerdub wrote: »

That's fairly subjective. As far as I knew Russia and the US were allies for the most part until Obama came about (pre-emptive note about the cold war being a long time ago). The Obama administration has increased hostilities with them and it has gone by with relatively little criticism rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps Trump isn't so much of a puppet of Putin more so that he might think it's not really in his interest to be so hostile there.

So it's ok to support heinous acts of some governments (one of a very small number of countries who do) so long as your buddy buddies?

This is all going away from my original point. My main target for this question isn't so much the big cheeses in the US, it's those regular folks and media commentators who are terrified of a Trump presidency.

As I say, I think it would be better for everyone if the US took a step back as dictating terms, be it Europe, the Middle East or elsewhere. If Trump steps away from Israel and conflict in Europe then I'd consider that a good thing. Less hostility with Russia is a good start IMO.

Just something to consider anyway. If you think otherwise fair enough.

US/Russia relations have been a mixed bag over the years. They were allies in WW2. Most people though think of the 1946-1985 period of generally poor relations we call the cold war. Even here though there were times when relations were quite good and by the 1970s and especially 1980s, the USSR shared many of the same interests as the USA. Reagan and Gorbachev improved relations and the era 1986-1998 was generally a more positive era of relations though Clinton's war with Serbia tarnished relations and this was inherited by Bush 2. Bush 2's first year in office saw poorer relations and then better relations after 9/11. The Iraq war soured relations with America again and they really haven't recovered since despite attempts (things like conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine not to mention differences on Assad have not helped relations). Obama tried to improve these soured relations but generally through Bush 2 and Obama, America and Russia have been on the same side probably more often than against each other despite their mistrust of each other. ISIS, al Qaeda and other criminal extremism from non-state players (I do not regard ISIS as a proper country) along with the ever increasing number of failed states in the Middle East and the Northern half of Africa is something that both America and Russia want to roll back.

US meddling in other countries has proven to be a failure. We can debate how well or ill intentioned US interventions were (there is no denying that regimes like Milosevic Serbia and Taliban Afghanistan were no loss) but a lot of these wars were counterproductive and done for greedy reasons. Each one of the last 5 presidents has intervened in some country during their presidency. Republican and Democrat alike have adopted identical policies. The main question now is: Does America sit back and do nothing and let countries deal with their own issues or does it intervene to get rid of someone who is against their interests and who they can sell to the world as being a tyrant who is a threat to his own people and the world. The latter is what Reagan, the 2 Bushes, Clinton and even Obama have done.

The various wars have been often a failure because templates were copied from older more successful ones. Serbia was a success relatively speaking so it was copied for Iraq and Afghanistan but things did not work out. Taking out Saddam, Gaddafi and trying to take out Assad have all been failures and the argument that the countries of Iraq, Libya and Syria would be better off under their former/current leaders is obvious. America has been too trigger happy and all recent presidents have been more than happy to go to war rather than finding other solutions. Arguably, sometimes (9/11 is an example) they had little choice but other times, they had a choice (Iraq in 2003 was an example and arguably in 1991 as well: nothing negative was done to Saddam by America when Iraq invaded Iran. America instead rewarded both countries with arms and made a lot of money out of prolonging this war).

El_Duderino 09

eire4 wrote:

and a far right economic agenda that embraces the privatization of almost every public service, cutting social welfare and getting rid of regulations that protect both the public and the environment. Basically turning society into a neo feudal state run by an Oligarchic elite at the expense of the vast majority or the population.

If you were to think of anyone from the US who would be in a great position to become a Russian style oligarch... Who has lots of money and influence and would have the power to break up the US government... Someone who has no respect for the government or the common man whom the government is there to protect... Humm

I just can't think. Can anyone think of someone in that kind of position?

El_Duderino 09

Yourself isit wrote:

I bet he implements a Keynesian policy with support from his voters (who aren't traditional GOP voters anyway).

Definitely. True.ps supporters and a lot if Republicans are about to realise they like the idea of borrowing and spending. In fact they bloody love it!

Investment in the future and all that. It was dreadful socialist guff when Obama suggested it but now it will be an investment in making America Great Again - roads, bridges, walls, that sort of thing.

Do trump's supporters on this thread support that type of investment as a matter of interest?

ligerdub

Do his usual detractors think it's a good idea?

Zubeneschamali

ligerdub wrote: »

Do his usual detractors think it's a good idea?

Yes, I do. Use debt to get the economy going and create bigly jobs, rather than giving yuge tax cuts to the rich and further increasing inequality.

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote:

Do his usual detractors think it's a good idea?

Yes of course. It was a good idea for the last 8 years when Obama called hit it and it was a good idea when the republicans blocked it.

That was me giving a straight answer. Could you do something similar?

It's awfully hard to get an honest straight answer from trump's supporters. I suppose it comes to. The fact that they don't have any actual expectations of him. Their support comes after the fact and they don't want to be caught out by supporting things he doesn't actually do.
The tail is wagging the dog which is great for Trump because he can't lose their support, terrible for democracy.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Definitely. True.ps supporters and a lot if Republicans are about to realise they like the idea of borrowing and spending. In fact they bloody love it!

Investment in the future and all that. It was dreadful socialist guff when Obama suggested it but now it will be an investment in making America Great Again - roads, bridges, walls, that sort of thing.

Do trump's supporters on this thread support that type of investment as a matter of interest?

Good question. But a bit of history is needed. When Barack Obama took office he was given control of the TARP money (other than the $475, I believe, spend by GW Bush, of which a portion was a failure in intent as some of the banks used their money to simply buy other banks). Obama promised to spend stimulus money on “shovel ready jobs.” I was behind this and initially cheered Obama’s commitment as we were led to believe the “shovel ready jobs” he sold us on implied the fixing and updating to our failing infrastructure. We were duped. Only 8% of the nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending under Obama was spent on transportation and infrastructure. Non of the money went to increase anyone’s incentive to work harder or invest more. In addition, under Barack Obama our debt has increased by over $10 Trillion, and he has squandered a huge portion of the money on his progressive liberal agenda to finance consumption with little benefit to the economy. Therefore our infrastructure remains in a shambles.

So, do I support Trump’s commitment to updating our infrastructure? Yes, with some ‘buts’ attached. He needs to spend it without waste. Government projects have been historically wasteful and overly expensive. In addition, spending on infrastructure needs to be accompanied by pro-growth policies, which will help to pay for it. Otherwise his promises are no better than the lies and deceit perpetrated on us by Obama.

Amerika

Is there a betting line on whether Obama will grant Hillary Clinton a presidential pardon in his final hours? I'd probably jump on it if there were. Hillary’s scandal was also Obama’s. I doubt Obama would want any more probing into his own administration by the new DOJ.

Harika

Amerika wrote: »

Is there a betting line on whether Obama will grant Hillary Clinton a presidential pardon in his final hours? I'd probably jump on it if there were. Hillary’s scandal was also Obama’s. I doubt Obama would want any more probing into his own administration by the new DOJ.

I bet that Obama won't grant her a presidential pardon, simply for the fact that the scandal is like Benghazi mainly in Republicans heads. But feel free to hand over free money. :cool:

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

Is there a betting line on whether Obama will grant Hillary Clinton a presidential pardon in his final hours?

Losing to Trump is embarrassing, but doesn't actually need a Presidential pardon.

ligerdub

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes of course. It was a good idea for the last 8 years when Obama called hit it and it was a good idea when the republicans blocked it.

That was me giving a straight answer. Could you do something similar?

It's awfully hard to get an honest straight answer from trump's supporters. I suppose it comes to. The fact that they don't have any actual expectations of him. Their support comes after the fact and they don't want to be caught out by supporting things he doesn't actually do.
The tail is wagging the dog which is great for Trump because he can't lose their support, terrible for democracy.

Alright....let's take a breather on this, no need for the rants (yet), as I will answer your question. You can understand though that in an environment where people are constantly berating the man, when he does something that those people agree with him on, they use that as a "this is your guy huh?" exhibit A to his supporters rather than saying "I don't like the guy but I think this is a good idea" can rub people up the wrong way.

Personally my only interest in this is situation is the policies followed which impact on the geopolitical situation. What they do in terms of economic policy is up to them, it might impact on my life but I'm not going to complain about it, they don't represent me. I'll let American people judge on his economic record as they are the ones he is answerable to. As far as Obama is concerned I think he has his heart in the right place with Obamacare and the stimulus package, and for the most part he can claim a lot of wins. You're never going to get things fully right, so I'll give him leeway in terms of the results. I dislike his overselling of how well he has done in that regard, as it's fairly clear that's not strictly true, but overall he inherited a mess so anything he did wasn't going to solve all ills. He did however have an "only way is up" vintage year, and that's something he will sail into the sunset on, no different to anyone else would I guess.

In terms of Trump I'd rather see a policy like that followed here where infrastructural projects are undertaken which improve communication channels, improve employment, and have a boost to the economy. It's debatable if that's affordable here or there. It is however an almost direct stimulation to the economy rather than the policies that were followed which propped up pharmaceutical companies or were left sitting on bank balance sheets.

Don't be fooled into thinking that Trump is like some sort of football team which people will blindly follow into oblivion. The only loyalty and certainty in that regard is that Trump was preferable to Hillary Clinton. That job is done now but it's homework time and he will be judged accordingly and fairly. I'd encourage his critics to do the same.

MightyMandarin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Losing to Trump is embarrassing, but doesn't actually need a Presidential pardon.

No, he's not actually that silly or funny, he's probably on about her emails, or Benghazi, or whatever stupid sh*t Trump supporters use as justification for the stuff their Russian puppet does.

Only problem for his stupid point is that Hillary won't be pardoned, because she hasn't been charged, or convicted or even did anything nearly as bad as what her detractors believe, and I'm far from her biggest fan.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Is there a betting line on whether Obama will grant Hillary Clinton a presidential pardon in his final hours? I'd probably jump on it if there were. Hillary’s scandal was also Obama’s. I doubt Obama would want any more probing into his own administration by the new DOJ.

Can you actually pardon somebody if they haven't been found guilty of anything?



...yet

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Can you actually pardon somebody if they haven't been found guilty of anything?



...yet

Yes and there is precedent. Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon even though he had not been charged with a crime. Obama could pardon Hillary Clinton “for any federal offenses she may have committed or could ever be prosecuted for.”