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

recedite

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

AFAIK they took the BB off Obama as soon as he was sworn in .

Yes, but for security reasons. The same reason Hillary was supposed to use the secure e-mail sever.
I assume Trump would send tweets through a secure server/system though. Whether he does so would be a political consideration; his advisors might not approve. Obama tweets a lot.

fly_agaric

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

He wasn't really mocked afair. There was media comment about how it was quite dangerous of him to be casting aspersions on the electoral process + such remarks might gin up his supporters to take violent action when he lost the election. This was at point in the campaign
after "grab their pussies" video came out and it looked like Hillary would absolutely bury him.

example:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/opinions/mcconnell-call-out-trumps-rigged-election-comments-douglas/index.html

You'd have to admit it is kind of ironic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Apparently, not only might voting machines in some states have been fiddled by Putin's hackers, but the whole basis of electoral system is fatally flawed and should be scrapped!

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

But the Dems will learn a lot from this campaign, all they need is somebody fresh and different, nobody foresaw Obama in 04, nor indeed Trump on 012!

I don’t think they will. Democrats seem to be doubling down on everything that lost them the election. The keep on alienating the average Americans that gave the win to Trump. The Far Left (by American standards) have taken over the Democratic party and apparently don't want to give up any of their control.

Which is fine by me.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

This one’s easy…

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

Well he did he was going to contest regardless of anything else - as long as he lost. He claimed there was voter fraud for weeks, then he didn't care once he won. Now he cares about the integrity of the voting system again.

That can't be convincing for a Trump supporter.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well he did he was going to contest regardless of anything else - as long as he lost. He claimed there was voter fraud for weeks, then he didn't care once he won. Now he cares about the integrity of the voting system again.

That can't be convincing for a Trump supporter.

Trump supporters knew going in they won’t be happy with a lot of what he will do as president. Heck, up until a few years ago he was a lifelong democrat. As long as he fights for his core policies, listed below, is about the most we can hope for. And picking Conservative Supreme Court judges. And bottom line... he’s still better than Hillary Clinton with just more of the same old, same old.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

Asking for a recount isn't the same as claiming an election is rigged.

Answer me this: if Trump believes that millions of votes were illegally cast, why isn't he looking for a recount?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Asking for a recount isn't the same as claiming an election is rigged.

Answer me this: if Trump believes that millions of votes were illegally cast, why isn't he looking for a recount?

I’ve mentioned the reason numerous times, already. A recount based on the claim of voter fraud, after the election has taken place, is an exercise in futility. Even if the claims of voter fraud are true, it can’t be feasibly investigated and accomplished in any near timeframe. The time to stop fraud is before the election takes place. What we need to do is fight for valid photo ID required to be able to vote.

Even if the democrats do successfully get electors removed of the three states because no conclusion can be reached by the deadline, then neither candidate gets to 270. Therefore the House picks the President, which would be Trump, and the Senate picks the VP, which would be Pence. It is simply a massive waste of time. But hey... George Soros, who seems to be the money man behind this endeavor, gets his wish in helping to destroy the American system just a little bit more.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve mentioned the reason numerous times, already. A recount based on the claim of voter fraud, after the election has taken place, is an exercise in futility. Even if the claims of voter fraud are true, it can’t be feasibly investigated and accomplished in any near timeframe. The time to stop fraud is before the election takes place.

I'm impressed, that almost makes sense: except that it ignores the rather important fact that there will be other elections in the future, and - if the claims of voter fraud are true - you'd think that the candidate who bleated the most about "rigged elections" would want it proved.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly and ad nauseam, that in-person voter fraud is so rare as to be completely non-existent to a useful approximation. Considering how desperate the GOP are to make it as difficult as possible for Democrats to vote - and they are tireless in that regard - don't you think that proving voter fraud on this scale would be a massively important thing to do?

But no; all he does is mouth off on Twitter.

InTheTrees

As regards surprising consequences, trump appointed tom price secretary of Health And Human Services.

Expect repeal of the affordable care act, in addition to cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (old age healthcare).

No doubt trumps supporters many of whom depend on these programs, will be eagerly awaiting his "amazing" replacements .

El_Duderino 09

InTheTrees wrote:

As regards surprising consequences, trump appointed tom price secretary of Health And Human Services.

Who is tom price?

InTheTrees wrote:

No doubt trumps supporters many of whom depend on these programs, will be eagerly awaiting his "amazing" replacements .

I expect him to expand health care beyond Obama care after he fiddles with it a bit and rebrands it. He needs to pander to his base at some point and I wouldn't be surprised if that's one if the ways he does it. The biggest problem with Obama care was the guy who's name it carries. 'Trump Care' would be much more likely to succeed with his core voters.

It would take a lot if money to keep both the people and industry happy. He would need to borrow a lot of money but spending other people's money has never been a problem for Trump

El_Duderino 09

Another surprising consequence will he the relative silence from the republicans when he blows up the national debt. I'm sure there will be some fiscal conservatives but not nearly as loud as they've been for the last 8 years.

The way to keep fiscal conservatives quiet is to buy them off with jobs programmes for their area, using borrowed money. No half measures, just get everyone working and making money and nobody will listen to the bean counter in the corner. Think Ireland circa 2005

oscarBravo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who is tom price?

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Your basic southern conservative Republican.

InTheTrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Your basic southern conservative Republican.

Yes. Elderly Americans and those caring for them are going to be in for a serious shock.

K-9

I don't think he'll expand Obamacare, try and keep the good and popular parts.

Basically what Hillary said in the second debate.

El_Duderino 09

oscarBravo wrote:

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Sounds harsh. Who better to expand Trump Care than Obama Care 's harshest critic.

Seriously don't be a hit surprised if he just borrows to subsidise it. It would jeep the people and industry happy

Manic Moran

In fairness, he probably knows something about the healthcare industry. The man was an orthopedic surgeon for 20 years, and then went to teach the subject at Emory, which is a pretty well-regarded institution. For better or worse, his opinions on guns and homosexuality don't have a lot of relevance in the health department.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

For better or worse, his opinions on guns and homosexuality don't have a lot of relevance in the health department.

With over 13,000 deaths and nearly 27,000 injuries by shooting in 2015 in the US, some might say his opinions on guns are highly relevant to the health department!

recedite

Here's Tom Price's plan from last year.
that's one thing about trump, he surrounds himself with experts instead of political hacks. A businessman always knows how to delegate.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Here's Tom Price's plan from last year.

Yeah, that (or something like it) is probably what will be lined up to replace PPACA.

that's one thing about trump, he surrounds himself with experts instead of political hacks. A businessman always knows how to delegate.

I'm sure all the people who are about to lose their insurance coverage will be delighted that it was an "expert" who came up with the plan.

Billy86

Ben Carson: Education and Housing Expert

(who doesn't think he's expert enough for the job)

recedite

Considering Hillary accused The Donald of being a racist because of his supposedly racist housing policies, I think Ben Carson is a really good choice.

InTheTrees

recedite wrote: »

Considering Hillary accused The Donald of being a racist because of his supposedly racist housing policies, I think Ben Carson is a really good choice.

You think Ben Carson is a "really good choice" purely because he's black?

InTheTrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that (or something like it) is probably what will be lined up to replace PPACA.

I'm sure all the people who are about to lose their insurance coverage will be delighted that it was an "expert" who came up with the plan.

Hysterical. The trump voters who are expecting their healthcare to be replaced by "something amazing" are going to be in for a shock.

El_Duderino 09

I see Ends Kenny is meeting today with Tim Cook, head of Apple. It's happening. The corporations are being called home and we're in the position of begging them not to go.

Trump's going to be remembered as a genius

Earthhorse

That makes zero sense. Apple need a base of operations in Europe. Particularly inside the EU. The Irish Apple operation doesn't take jobs from the US.

recedite

InTheTrees wrote: »

You think Ben Carson is a "really good choice" purely because he's black?

That is the realpolitik of the situation that Hillary and the democrats have engineered.
The same as its nowadays a good decision to send a black police officer in to deal with an armed black man waving a gun about. That is the situation that the Black Lives Matter movement has created.

El_Duderino 09

Earthhorse wrote:

That makes zero sense. Apple need a base of operations in Europe. Particularly inside the EU. The Irish Apple operation doesn't take jobs from the US.

There are jobs of different value in apple. They keep most R&D in America but some of the research is done in Europe to avail if tax breaks and, split the intellectual property to justify other tax arrangements. If trump gives those companies similar advantage, then why would get bother staying?

BoatMad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There are jobs of different value in apple. They keep most R&D in America but some of the research is done in Europe to avail if tax breaks and, split the intellectual property to justify other tax arrangements. If trump gives those companies similar advantage, then why would get bother staying?

because it would expose Apple to significant tax , if it repatriated all its intellectual property , It has just moved it into Ireland , precisely to offset tax charges

Most US companies are in Ireland, because they need to be inside the EU zone, that the reason, what Trump might do has little effect on Ireland, but will have major effects where there are low cost US manufacturing setups, that have no direct large market attached. ( i.e. Mexico)

I suspect the billion lying in the Caymans, will be brought back to the US, but that was on the cards anyway and those billions where never coming to Ireland anyway

BoatMad

First off 'The Donald' has inherited the same problems Obama had to deal with. It seems he is the 5th president in a row who has to deal with a major war and like many of his predecessors, this war will be fought in the same place: Iraq. Unlike earlier presidents but like Obama, Trump does not have a choice here: ISIS clearly need to be defeated and fast. Unlike Milosevic, Saddam or even the Taliban, they pose a clear and present danger to the entire world.

So, like Obama, Trump has to defeat ISIS. But unlike Obama, Trump wants close relations with Russia (which I agree with). Back in 2011 when the revival of ISIS (previously al Qaeda in Iraq) came about due to the Arab Spring, Obama backed up democracy in the Middle East. The Arab Spring became a nightmare and Libya and Syria have joined the ever growing list of world failed states. Obama and Russia both opposed ISIS but one chose other rebels and the other chose Assad. Now Trump has shown he wants partnership with Russia and has hinted he will work with Assad.

While I think America and Russia should improve relations, possibly not all of this will be good. America and Russia making friends also means of course that Iran becomes America's new friend. Trump may tear up Obama's deal to make a new deal and restore diplomatic relations. Again, this is a good thing in theory as long as America and Russia persuade Iran's government to abandon fascist laws on women and alcohol (laws that are contrary to Russian, American and Iranian business interests) and insist on the military and clergy to stay out of politics. A new federal republic of Iran with Hassan Rouhani and his elected successors as the true leaders would be good. Let Khamenei then stay on until his death but have him wind up that position akin to Franco's Spain. The other possibility though is America and Russia could tolerate a Revolutionary Guards client state where they become stronger and form business relations with Trump: that would make Iran (or a part of it) a second Saudi Arabia and we don't need that.

Also, there is the massive possibility that a Christian/Shia pact could form between Trump, Putin, Iran, Iraq and Syria along with support of Saudi Arabia as the main Sunni power and Israel as the main Jewish power. In the middle, other Sunnis could be persecuted or marginalised, leading to a new version of ISIS. And even if Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan normalise, chances are the next extremists could come from Sub Saharan Africa or from Siberian separatists. The current threat from the Middle East and militant 'Islam' will not always be the main threat and the world community will need to look out for other flashpoints where wars, famines, discrimination, etc. occur.

Of course, a lot of Trump's responsibilities will be healing his own divided country. Make America Great Again was his slogan. Everyone from moderate Republicans to Clinton haters to racist types voted for him and now Trump has to reign in the latter and represent ALL America and maintain good relations with his neighbours. Hostility with Mexico and Mexicans could stir up more trouble and drug cartels could justify support by waging war on America and a new wave of Narco-terrorism could explode onto the scene, this time from strictly non-Islamic sources. Trump has to think long and hard about what has to be done and should form a government of moderate competent people who can get what needs to be done properly.

This of course is a nice piece of " opinion " , very little of which actually stands to proper inquiry

It should be pointed out that again Hillary won the popular vote, so comments like " it what the people want" dont really stand up to inspection , correctly " its what the electoral system decided "