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

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote:

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.â€

Good. Here's hoping he does. You'd never know what Trump might fabricate in future.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

Obama could pardon Hillary Clinton “for any federal offenses she may have committed or could ever be prosecuted for.”

Or he could call in a drone strike on Trump and declare himself God Emperor in Perpetuity.

Triangle

ligerdub wrote: »

The Obama administration has increased hostilities with them and it has gone by with relatively little criticism rightly or wrongly.

While I agree with alot that you say, surely this point is backwards. Russia has brought war, destruction and death upon civilians in peaceful places.
The Obama administration reacted to that.

Generally during recessionary times, leaders resort to the patriotism card to bring people together, which can cause international pressure/troubles. This is what has caused alot of troubles in the last 10 years imo. A tough time for a leader who doesn't 'play' this card.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or he could call in a drone strike on Trump and declare himself God Emperor in Perpetuity.

Even I don't think he would go quite that far.

So he antagonizes Russia with possible conflict for reportedly hacking and releasing date to Wikileaks, but commutes the sentence of traitor Manning for doing essentially the same thing? Go figure.

MightyMandarin

Triangle wrote:

Generally during recessionary times, leaders resort to the patriotism card to bring people together, which can cause international pressure/troubles. This is what has caused alot of troubles in the last 10 years imo. A tough time for a leader who doesn't 'play' this card.

This is the part I don't get with Trump supporters. Assuming he's not being bribed/blackmailed by Russia and isn't actually a puppet - which is admittedly difficult to believe given the evidence- it seems that he wants to extend relations with Russia. Now Russia's economy is struggling and to improve it aka mask the problems, Putin is acting as a war monger going to places like Syria and bombing the **** out of civilians. If Trump wants to team up with Russia, then there's a good chance they'll join in. There's also a good chance China might do something to test the waters with him early and that could provoke a military action, especially given his rhetoric.

What I don't get is these 'conservatives' who support him, say they want to cut the debt, but it looks likely that the exact opposite will happen. In fact the Republican's budget which passed, through which the ACA will be dismembered, will add $8trillion to the national debt.

Where is this 'conservatism'? Even Rand Paul calls the GOP out on its bs. Other Senators ought to do the same.

baaba maal

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.

His first phone call upon election to a foreign head of state was to the President of Taiwan. Would you describe that as a move designed to reduce Sino-US tensions? The Chinese certainly view that as interference in a conflict that has nothing to do with the US.

Itssoeasy

I've a question for the American based posters. Donald trump said that he wants to make America great again.


But my question is has america become that bad over the last eight years ? I mean maybe because I'm in Ireland I don't see the full picture but to me looking at America it doesn't seem to have in a mess that can't be gotten out of.

Amerika

baaba maal wrote: »

His first phone call upon election to a foreign head of state was to the President of Taiwan. Would you describe that as a move designed to reduce Sino-US tensions? The Chinese certainly view that as interference in a conflict that has nothing to do with the US.

I think you might be confusing the word 'to' with 'from.' But yes, it was planned, and yes it was a brilliant move. It put Beijing China on notice that they will be dealing with a new kind of President. As John Bolton it "the president of the United States [will] talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it's in the interest of the United States, and nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to."

And money talks.

The largest foreign holder of US debt is China, which owns more than $1.24 Trillion in bills, notes, and bonds. In total, China owns about 10% of publicly held U.S. debt.

They aren’t going to risk not getting paid.

Amerika

You betcha Trump can make Mexico pay for his wall. And Mexicans already know this.

There is a provision of the corporate tax-reform plan House Republicans are planning to take up after Trump’s inauguration. The “border adjustment.”

The House Republicans’ plan would lower the corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent and apply the tax based on the location of consumption rather than the location of production. It would do this through a “border adjustment” that exempts exports while taxing imports. Under the plan, all imports coming into the United States would be subject to the 20 percent tax, but exports would have the tax refunded — making them tax-free.

As of now, more than 160 countries around the world have a “border adjusted” value-added tax (VAT). I guess it's time for the US to jump on the bandwagon.

The US trade deficit in goods with Mexico was around $65 Billion in 2016. So if Mexican imports are taxed at a rate of 20 percent, the United States would raise about $13 billion a year in revenue from Mexico via the border adjustment.

Trump says the southern border wall will cost between $8 Billion and $12 Billion. Many others think it would be higher, between $15 Billion and $25 Billion. Either way the wall gets paid for in 1 or 2 years -- by Mexico. And over several more years it could also pay for other border security measures like the the deportation of criminal aliens, the hiring of more border agents, and the hiring of more screeners to conduct the “extreme vetting” Trump wants.

[X] Mexico Pay For The Wall - Check

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

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).

You mention that deposing Serbia's Milosevic and the Talaban was good. It was still regime change. Look around the world at the countries America did not invade. North Korea which is a threat to Japan and South Korea and in Rwanda that conflict went on without US interference same with Darfur.

The US determines for itself which Nations should go and which should stay. When Serbia was attacked it was in defense of the Croats, Slovenians & Bosnians and the rest of Europe approved of this. It had regional support. The invasion of Iraq had virtually no support from the regional power Turkey which has now used the current conflict as an excuse to go after the Kurds.

The Libertarians and Republicans who believe in Liberty have always strenuously opposed foreign entanglements and for years the conventional reply was American isolationism is UnAmerican. The US is a world power that should influence events around the world in the favour of US interest.

baaba maal

Amerika-You betcha.

My point was in response to a point that Trump was indeed doing sabre-rattling. It remains to be seen if this approach is brilliant or not.

Amerika

baaba maal wrote: »

Amerika-You betcha.

My point was in response to a point that Trump was indeed doing sabre-rattling. It remains to be seen if this approach is brilliant or not.

Point taken.

Yourself isit

Triangle wrote: »

While I agree with alot that you say, surely this point is backwards. Russia has brought war, destruction and death upon civilians in peaceful places.
The Obama administration reacted to that.

Generally during recessionary times, leaders resort to the patriotism card to bring people together, which can cause international pressure/troubles. This is what has caused alot of troubles in the last 10 years imo. A tough time for a leader who doesn't 'play' this card.

Obama and the US under the Democrats and normal Republicans are probably more interventionist than Putin.

Excellent piece from John Pilger.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/this-week-the-issue-is-not-trump-it-is-ourselves-

Yourself isit

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?

I support it. But I'm not pro trump but anti anti trump.

Not the left but the war party and the deep state. They want him gone.

Yourself isit

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

Do people absolutely believe that trump is a Russian puppet? It's total nonsense. The faux left equivalent of the birthers

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

Do people absolutely believe that trump is a Russian puppet? It's total nonsense. The faux left equivalent of the birthers

I am curious though, what you think the reason for Trump repeatedly lying about his relationships with Putin and Russia is?

Yourself isit

Billy86 wrote: »

I am curious though, what you think the reason for Trump repeatedly lying about his relationships with Putin and Russia is?

He's just full of bluster.

Not that meeting Putin means anything. The idea that Putin would have looked at trump in 2014 and said that "this man is going to win the presidency for me" is fantasy.

baaba maal

On the investment issue, there seems to be a sense that much of the road improvements will be funded by tolling the roads- after the contractors having been given tax credits.
Given Trump's shady business practices, it would be reasonable to be suspicious of these arrangements.

MightyMandarin

Yourself isit wrote: »

Do people absolutely believe that trump is a Russian puppet? It's total nonsense. The faux left equivalent of the birthers

How is it anything like the birther movement?

There's actual evidence from reliable sources that show that he's either being blackmailed and/or in bed with them, he and his team have made secret- and in some cases, illegal- contact with the Russians, Putin has a clear motive to exert his influence given his desires and his country's own political failings and most important of all: there is hard factual evidence that Russia interfered in the US election with the aim of getting this candidate, the winning candidate, elected.

Now tell how the **** is this anything like claiming a, soon to be former, president was born in Africa despite having been raised in Hawaii by a single American mother and lived in America all his life, plus the fact that he actually published his own birth cert to disprove that junk conspiracy?

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it anything like the birther movement?

There's actual evidence from reliable sources that show that he's either being blackmailed and/or in bed with them, he and his team have made secret- and in some cases, illegal- contact with the Russians, Putin has a clear motive to exert his influence given his desires and his country's own political failings and most important of all: there is hard factual evidence that Russia interfered in the US election with the aim of getting this candidate, the winning candidate, elected.

Now tell how the **** is this anything like claiming a, soon to be former, president was born in Africa despite having been raised in Hawaii by a single American mother and lived in America all his life, plus the fact that he actually published his own birth cert to disprove that junk conspiracy?

Both are conspiracy theories dreamt up by trolls on the internet. Later given wide spread coverage by the media. Once again it shows various media outlets push their own agenda to attack their opponents.

Yourself isit

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it anything like the birther movement?

There's actual evidence from reliable sources that show that he's either being blackmailed and/or in bed with them, he and his team have made secret- and in some cases, illegal- contact with the Russians, Putin has a clear motive to exert his influence given his desires and his country's own political failings and most important of all: there is hard factual evidence that Russia interfered in the US election with the aim of getting this candidate, the winning candidate, elected.

Now tell how the **** is this anything like claiming a, soon to be former, president was born in Africa despite having been raised in Hawaii by a single American mother and lived in America all his life, plus the fact that he actually published his own birth cert to disprove that junk conspiracy?

There really no evidence he has even met Putin. There is no evidence the emails were hacked rather than leaked and none at all that the election was "hacked", an emotive term.

This is just spy work. And amateur crap at that.

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

He's just full of bluster.

Not that meeting Putin means anything. The idea that Putin would have looked at trump in 2014 and said that "this man is going to win the presidency for me" is fantasy.

Meeting Putin may or may not have meant much of anything depending, but going out of his way to very intentionally lie about about having not met Putin means a lot.

Yourself isit wrote: »

There really no evidence he has even met Putin.

So now Trump literally saying he met Putin isn't evidence that he met Putin?

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote:

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.

I asked a question and you answered it by asking me the question instead of offering any answer. Whoever you're talking about, it ain't me.

His supporters on this thread ARE blindly following him a lot like a football team. Thats why they're terrified of saying what they want him to do. Instead they're waiting for him to do it, then nodding in unison, agreeing that's exactly what he should have done.

Why the support for great relationship with Russia even after the hacking but antagonist barb's at China and Europe?

The reasons for good relations with Russia are about as strong as they are for good relations with China. Europe is getting nothing but derision compared to Russia and his supporters don't see anything wrong with that. The only consistent thing is their unwavering support for whatever trump says.

The same people who agreed with Trump that Obamacare was a dreadful socialist idea will be in complete agreement that Trumpcare is a brilliant idea.

The same people who agreed with trump that America should not be interventionist (not like Hillary the Hawk) will fully support this and that war that Trump wants to get involved in.

I've seen no consistency from his supporters except their consistent support for whatever approach he takes, after he's taken it.

Yourself isit

Billy86 wrote: »

Meeting Putin may or may not have meant much of anything depending, but going out of his way to very intentionally lie about about having not met Putin means a lot.


So now Trump literally saying he met Putin isn't evidence that he met Putin?

Yes as I said - bluster. Trump likes to embiggen himself. Sad.

If he met there would be some evidence. Some photo. Something.

Here's my question. How did evil Putin influence the Republican primaries? The DNC emails didn't influence that, and they were no magically hacked voting machines unconnected to the Internet.

MightyMandarin

Yourself isit wrote:

There really no evidence he has even met Putin. There is no evidence the emails were hacked rather than leaked and none at all that the election was "hacked", an emotive term.

It doesn't matter if he met Putin at all. What matters is that his team has had secret contact with the Russians and in one particular case involving Flynn, his security adviser, he broke the Logan Act by doing so. This isn't bluster, his press secretary acknowledged it last week.

Yourself isit wrote:

This is just spy work. And amateur crap at that.

It's damn good spy work done by a damn good spy, Chris Steele. It's been held as credible by multiple intelligence agencies and actual news outlets, not just liberal ones. This stuff is actually happening, and it's not 'fake news' at all.

Lemming

Regards Chris Steele's claims; what I find absolutely fascinating ... is not that Trump denied it all (of course he would - anyone in his position would), but that the Russians have strongly refuted the claims. Any other incident or claim involving Russia and the standard response is a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders and a gester of faux-incredulous-bemusement from them; including the allegations of DNC/vote-machine hacking. So what's different this time around that has them sitting up and paying attention? Their reaction suggests that they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar regards Trump and they know it; just that nobody has ponied up the indesputable evidence.

Yourself isit

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he met Putin at all. What matters is that his team has had secret contact with the Russians and in one particular case involving Flynn, his security adviser, he broke the Logan Act by doing so. This isn't bluster, his press secretary acknowledged it last week.

The logan act seems to apply when there are negotiations on treaties etc. Was that the case here?

It's damn good spy work done by a damn good spy, Chris Steele. It's been held as credible by multiple intelligence agencies and actual news outlets, not just liberal ones. This stuff is actually happening, and it's not 'fake news' at all.

It was unsubstantiated nonsense written as if by a child. The faux left love affair with the CIA and MI5/6 would be humerous were it not tragic.

(Although I'd like to welcome you all back to anti-Americanism come Friday. It's been lonely.)

Yourself isit

Lemming wrote: »

Regards Chris Steele's claims; what I find absolutely fascinating ... is not that Trump denied it all (of course he would - anyone in his position would), but that the Russians have strongly refuted the claims. Any other incident or claim involving Russia and the standard response is a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders and a gester of faux-incredulous-bemusement from them; including the allegations of vote-machine hacking. So what's different this time around that has them sitting up and paying attention? Their reaction suggests that they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar regards Trump and they know it; just that nobody has ponied up the indesputable evidence.

They've probably realised that they need to do something or the kind of person who believes this kind of stuff (vote machine hacking, really?) would take it seriously. Didn't work apparently.

Nobody has answered my question about the primaries. How were the primaries "hacked"?

Lemming

Yourself isit wrote: »

They've probably realised that they need to do something or the kind of person who believes this kind of stuff (vote machine hacking, really?) would take it seriously. Didn't work apparently.

Not their problem. All they had to do was issue ye olde 'standard response', sit back, and wait.

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes as I said - bluster. Trump likes to embiggen himself. Sad.

If he met there would be some evidence. Some photo. Something.

Here's my question. How did evil Putin influence the Republican primaries? The DNC emails didn't influence that, and they were no magically hacked voting machines unconnected to the Internet.

I guess we'll have to see what the IC come up with, which is what investigations are all about. That's why I'm not saying Russia definitely did or definitely didn't at this point.

People don't take pictures of every single time they meet other people, so I'm afraid that's not necessarily true. And it doesn't even begin to explain why he claims to have no connections with Russia so much evidence (including his own son) say completely differently. Why would Trump claim to have no connections whatsoever when his own son says they do?